GAN PEI LING v 1. ) YONG MEE LEE 2. ) Kon Ting Fei [Menuntut Sebagai Pegawai Awam Persatuan Kebajikan Inspirasi Kemanusiaan (Story Of Seed) (No. Pendaftaran: Ppm-016-10-251102016) Bagi Dan Untuk Pihaknya] 3. ) Audrey Yeoh Cheng Gin 4. ) Kon Ting Fei

Case Significance

Illustrates the defence of justification under section 8 of the Defamation Act 1957: where the essential or substantial truth of the material defamatory imputations is proven on the balance of probabilities, justification is a complete defence, and the court allowed the appeals and set aside the Sessions Court's judgment on that basis.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Judicial Commissioner Elaine Yap Chin Gaik, is an appeal after a full trial in consolidated defamation actions. The respondents, who included individuals and one suing as a public officer of a registered welfare association, the Persatuan Kebajikan Inspirasi Kemanusiaan (Story of Seed), had sued the appellant over allegedly defamatory statements, and the Sessions Court had entered judgment in their favour. The appellant appealed, raising the defence of justification and contending that the Sessions Court had failed to properly analyse the entirety of the evidence. A related point was that the matter had earlier been remitted to the Sessions Court for reconsideration, and that the Sessions Court was not functus officio in dealing with it on remittal.

The court allowed the appeals. It approached the defence of justification through the lens of section 8 of the Defamation Act 1957, which provides that in an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges, a defence of justification does not fail merely because the truth of every charge is not proved, if the words not proved true do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges. The question was whether the essential or substantial truth of the defamatory imputations had been established on the balance of probabilities. The court was satisfied that the substantial truth of the material imputations across the consolidated suits had been proven, so that the defence of justification was made out. Because justification is a complete defence, the court saw no need to address the other issues canvassed, including the argument on section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950. It allowed the appeals with costs of RM25,000 here and below and set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court. The judgment illustrates the operation of the substantial-truth defence of justification under section 8 of the Defamation Act 1957 as a complete answer to a libel claim.