REKHA D/O MUNISAMY (I/C NO: 781128-10-5210) 1. ORTUS EXPERT WHITE SDN BHD (COMPANY NO :951378-H) 2. GURDEV SINGH S/O JAGJIT SINGH (NO K/P: 870630-56-5495)

REKHA D/O MUNISAMY (I/C NO: 781128-10-5210) 1. ORTUS EXPERT WHITE SDN BHD (COMPANY NO :951378-H) 2. GURDEV SINGH S/O JAGJIT SINGH (NO K/P: 870630-56-5495)

The Court held the High Court was not functus officio because the striking out order had not been perfected and therefore could be revisited; the Plaintiffs proved libel but failed to prove malicious falsehood for lack of malice and special damage; the High Court erred in unfairly preventing the Defendant from...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
W-02(NCvC)(W)-1257-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Rekha d/o Munisamy; Respondent: Ortus Expert White Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Gurdev Singh s/o Jagjit Singh
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 September 2020
Case Number
W-02(NCvC)(W)-1257-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Defamation and Malicious Falsehood / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal; Judgment on Appeal and Order for Retrial
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed and partly dismissed: libel claim upheld; malicious falsehood claim dismissed; procedural error found in excluding Defendant from calling witnesses; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Order 34 Rules of Court Discretion, Language of Court/translation (order 92; National Language Act), Functus Officio, Witness Exclusion, Retrial
Defamation Tort Civil Procedure Constitutional Law (language) Administrative Law Libel Malicious Falsehood Order 34 Rules of Court Discretion +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rekha d/o Munisamy

Appellant

Ortus Expert White Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Gurdev Singh s/o Jagjit Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Defamation and Malicious Falsehood / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal; Judgment on Appeal and Order for Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court judge was functus officio after striking out the Plaintiffs' claim
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs proved libel and/or malicious falsehood
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in barring the Defendant from calling witnesses under O.34 ROC and applied the rule unevenly

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the High Court was not functus officio because the striking out order had not been perfected and therefore could be revisited; the Plaintiffs proved libel but failed to prove malicious falsehood for lack of malice and special damage; the High Court erred in unfairly preventing the Defendant from calling witnesses (discretion under O.34 should have been exercised consistently and not to the Defendant's prejudice); the Plaintiffs failed to translate the alleged defamatory statements into Bahasa Melayu as required for pleadings; and, in the interests of justice a retrial of the Plaintiffs' claim and the Defendant's counterclaim was ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed and partly dismissed: libel claim upheld; malicious falsehood claim dismissed; procedural error found in excluding Defendant from calling witnesses; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Retrial of the Plaintiffs' claim and the Defendant's counterclaim ordered