THIEN HONG MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD v 1. ) MS TIME SDN BHD 2. ) DATUK SERI MOHD EFFANDIE BIN AHMAD

Case Significance

A worked example of an appellate court upholding defamation liability, increasing a manifestly inadequate award to RM150,000 inclusive of aggravated damages, and varying the injunction into a permanent one under section 69 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns consolidated appeals in a defamation action and a cross-appeal on the adequacy of damages. After a full trial the Sessions Court had found the first defendant, Thien Hong Machinery (M) Sdn Bhd, and the third defendant liable in defamation to the plaintiffs, an engineering and crane-rental company, MS Time Sdn Bhd, and its managing director, and had awarded damages and injunctive relief. The first and third defendants appealed against liability, while the plaintiffs cross-appealed on the ground that the damages of RM60,000 were manifestly inadequate and that the injunction should be made permanent; the underlying dispute concerned a debt-recovery arrangement under which the third defendant had acted on the first defendant's behalf. On the appeals against liability, the court found no basis to disturb the Sessions Court's findings after trial and dismissed the consolidated appeals with costs. On the cross-appeal, the court reviewed comparable defamation awards, including authorities recognising that public defamation and serious allegations justify higher awards, and held that the award of RM60,000 was manifestly inadequate. It assessed a fair and proportionate sum at RM150,000 as general damages inclusive of aggravated elements, payable jointly by the first and third defendants, declining to award separate exemplary damages. Given the third defendant's admission of continued harassment, the court found a real risk of repetition and, exercising its appellate power under section 69 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, varied the injunction into a permanent injunction, while affirming the orders for apology, retraction and undertaking. The judgment is a useful worked example of an appellate court upholding defamation liability and increasing an inadequate damages award while making the injunction permanent. The decision illustrates the appellate court's willingness to recalibrate a defamation award upward where the sum awarded below fails to reflect the gravity and public character of the libel, and to convert interim into permanent injunctive relief where the evidence discloses a real threat of repetition.