RUSLAN BIN RAMLI AMBANK (M) BERHAD

RUSLAN BIN RAMLI AMBANK (M) BERHAD

On proper construction the Proclamation of Sale of 10.11.2023 merely announced a bank-enforced auction based on existing security documents and was not capable, in the meanings pleaded, of conveying defamatory imputations against the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff also failed to particularise the words complained of, produced no supporting proof of payment, and undue delay further undermined the claim. Therefore the Defendant's summary determination application succeeded and the Plaintiff's claim failed.

Citation
BL-22NCvC-25-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ruslan bin Ramli; Defendant: Ambank (M) Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 October 2024
Case Number
BL-22NCvC-25-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Application for Determination Under Order 14 A/33 (summary Determination)
Outcome
Application allowed; Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Publication and Meaning, Proclamation of Sale, Limitation/delay in Bringing Action, Pleading Particularity, Data Protection Note
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Property Law (auction/foreclosure) Summary Judgment Publication and Meaning Proclamation of Sale Limitation/delay in Bringing Action +2 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruslan bin Ramli

Plaintiff

Ambank (M) Berhad

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Application for Determination Under Order 14 A/33 (summary Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Proclamation of Sale published on 10.11.2023 is capable in law of bearing a defamatory meaning against the Plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the reference to Ambank (M) Berhad in the Proclamation gives rise to a defamatory imputation
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded allegations have shown material injury to the Plaintiff's reputation sufficient to form a reasonable cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

On proper construction the Proclamation of Sale of 10.11.2023 merely announced a bank-enforced auction based on existing security documents and was not capable, in the meanings pleaded, of conveying defamatory imputations against the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff also failed to particularise the words complained of, produced no supporting proof of payment, and undue delay further undermined the claim. Therefore the Defendant's summary determination application succeeded and the Plaintiff's claim failed.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Grant Defendant's application (Lampiran 5) for determination under Orders 14A/33 of the Rules of Court 2012
  • Dismiss the Plaintiff's claim