Vasanthe a/p Narayanasamy Siemens Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Vasanthe a/p Narayanasamy Siemens Malaysia Sdn Bhd

The Second Defendant's striking out was allowed because there was no allegation he published the alleged defamatory words to any third party; the First Defendant's striking out was allowed because, even after leave to amend, the plaintiff failed to specify which words were defamatory and did not sufficiently plead publication by the First Defendant, therefore the amended claim still disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

Citation
WA-22NCVC-910-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Vasante A/P Narayanasamy; First Defendant: Siemens Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.; Second Defendant: Datuk Prakash Chandran Madhu Sudanan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 August 2020
Case Number
WA-22NCVC-910-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Hearing on Striking Out Applications and Amendment Application; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Striking out applications by both Defendants allowed; amendment application granted but amendments did not cure fatal pleading defects; claims against both Defendants struck out where appropriate.
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Publication in Defamation, Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out for No Reasonable Cause of Action, Conspiracy Allegation
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Employment Law Civil Procedure Pleading Requirements Publication in Defamation Amendment of Pleadings Strike Out for No Reasonable Cause of Action Conspiracy Allegation

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vasante A/P Narayanasamy

Plaintiff

Siemens Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

First Defendant

Datuk Prakash Chandran Madhu Sudanan

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Hearing on Striking Out Applications and Amendment Application; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action in defamation
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant published the alleged defamatory words to third parties
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendment sufficiently pleaded defamatory meaning and publication

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Defendant's striking out was allowed because there was no allegation he published the alleged defamatory words to any third party; the First Defendant's striking out was allowed because, even after leave to amend, the plaintiff failed to specify which words were defamatory and did not sufficiently plead publication by the First Defendant, therefore the amended claim still disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

Court Disposition

Striking out applications by both Defendants allowed; amendment application granted but amendments did not cure fatal pleading defects; claims against both Defendants struck out where appropriate.

Orders

  • Striking out application of the Second Defendant allowed; claim against Second Defendant dismissed.
  • Leave to amend the Writ and Statement of Claim granted.