MARIAH BINTI GHAZALI v MEDIA MULIA SDN. BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates the appellate court's reluctance to disturb a trial court's dismissal of a defamation claim: the appellant must show a clear error in the finding on whether the published words were defamatory of and referred to her, and general grievance about unfavourable coverage of an industry does not establish that a particular claimant was defamed.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam is an appeal in a defamation action (a claim in the tort of fitnah) brought by a fish-farm operator against a newspaper publisher. The appellant, who ran a freshwater fish-farming business, had sued the respondent — the publisher of an online newspaper — over a series of articles published in mid-2022. The articles complained of included one asserting that the use of chicken entrails as fish feed allowed operators to cut costs but caused river pollution and a foul smell (Penggunaan perut ayam sebagai makanan ikan membolehkan mereka menjimatkan kos tetapi ini menyebabkan pencemaran sungai dan bau yang busuk), and another headlined Warga Kemboja kuasai pasaran ikan air tawar (Cambodian nationals dominate the freshwater fish market), accompanied by photographs of fish cages. The Sessions Court had dismissed the defamation claim, and the appellant appealed. The question for the High Court sitting in its appellate capacity was whether the Sessions Court Judge had plainly erred in dismissing the claim — whether the words were defamatory of the appellant, whether they referred to and identified her, and whether any defence answered the claim. After examining the appeal record and the parties' submissions, the court found no legal basis on which to reverse the Sessions Court's decision, and it dismissed the appeal with costs of RM10,000. Delivered by Judicial Commissioner Hazizah Kassim, the judgment is a useful illustration of the appellate court's reluctance to interfere with a trial court's dismissal of a defamation claim: the appellant had to show a clear error in the trial court's assessment of whether the published words were defamatory of and referred to her, and a general grievance about unfavourable press coverage of an industry will not, without more, establish that a particular claimant was defamed. The court also proceeded on the footing that a claimant in defamation bears the burden of establishing the elements of the tort — that the words are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, that they refer to the claimant, and that they were published — before any question of a defence arises, and that a failure at trial to establish reference and defamatory meaning is not lightly reopened on appeal.