MOHAMED APANDI BIN ALI LIM KIT SIANG

MOHAMED APANDI BIN ALI LIM KIT SIANG

Read in context the impugned sentence bore the lesser meaning that the plaintiff abused his position and covered up aspects of the 1MDB scandal; the defendant proved Lucas Box particulars establishing substantial truth of that meaning and therefore justification succeeded; alternatively the publication was on an occasion of qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to plead particulars of malice under Order 78 r3(3) ROC so could not rebut privilege; appeal dismissed and High Court decision affirmed.

Citation
W-02(W)-949-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff in High Court): Mohamed Apandi bin Ali; Respondent (defendant in High Court): Lim Kit Siang
Court
W
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 November 2023
Case Number
W-02(W)-949-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Defamation / Judgment (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Meaning of Words, Justification (truth), Qualified Privilege, Reynolds/responsible Journalism, Malice Pleading Requirements, Damages, 1 MDB Public Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Media Law Administrative/public Law Criminal Procedure Mutual Legal Assistance Meaning of Words Justification (truth) Qualified Privilege +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Apandi bin Ali

Appellant (plaintiff in High Court)

Lim Kit Siang

Respondent (defendant in High Court)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Defamation / Judgment (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the impugned words bore the literal defamatory meaning alleged or a lesser meaning in context
  2. 2 Whether the defendant proved justification (truth) for the lesser meaning
  3. 3 Whether the publication was protected by qualified privilege and whether malice was established

Ratio Decidendi

Read in context the impugned sentence bore the lesser meaning that the plaintiff abused his position and covered up aspects of the 1MDB scandal; the defendant proved Lucas Box particulars establishing substantial truth of that meaning and therefore justification succeeded; alternatively the publication was on an occasion of qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to plead particulars of malice under Order 78 r3(3) ROC so could not rebut privilege; appeal dismissed and High Court decision affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • High Court decision affirmed