BOO CHENG HOW & 10 OTHERS ONG KOW MENG

BOO CHENG HOW & 10 OTHERS ONG KOW MENG

Appeal allowed because the Defendants proved an honest belief and qualified privilege attached to a communication to party officials and the Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence of publication by the Defendants to third parties or of actual malice; additionally, a duplicative award would unjustly enrich the Plaintiff where damages had already been awarded in prior proceedings, therefore the Sessions Court’s award was set aside and appeal allowed with costs.

Citation
JA-12B-28-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellants: Boo Cheng How & 10 Others; Respondent: Ong Kow Meng
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 September 2020
Case Number
JA-12B-28-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Appeal (high Court Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Publication, Qualified Privilege, Justification, Fair Comment, Double Recovery, Aggravated Damages, Exemplary Damages, Conflict of Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Civil Procedure Professional Ethics Publication Qualified Privilege Justification Fair Comment Double Recovery +3 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boo Cheng How & 10 Others

Appellants

Ong Kow Meng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Appeal (high Court Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the impugned letter was defamatory of the Plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether sending the letter to party officials and copying CEC members amounted to publication to third parties and if so whether qualified privilege applies
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff's separate suit against the publisher (Sin Chew) and award of damages precluded or rendered oppressive a second award against the Defendants (double claim/abuse of process)

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed because the Defendants proved an honest belief and qualified privilege attached to a communication to party officials and the Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence of publication by the Defendants to third parties or of actual malice; additionally, a duplicative award would unjustly enrich the Plaintiff where damages had already been awarded in prior proceedings, therefore the Sessions Court’s award was set aside and appeal allowed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Sessions Court judgment set aside