MOHD KHAIRUDDIN BIN AMAN RAZALI v SIN CHEW MEDIA CORPORATION BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates that juxtaposing an outdated photograph with a current headline can convey a defamatory meaning to the reasonable reader, that qualified privilege fails where the Reynolds responsible-journalism standard of verification is not met, and that malice may be inferred from reckless disregard for accuracy.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an appeal in a defamation action brought by a public figure against a media company over an online article. The appellant, then a Federal Minister, had sued the respondent media company after it published an online article in September 2020, during the Movement Control Order, alleging that he had travelled abroad in breach of the restrictions. The article was accompanied by a photograph of the appellant taken in 2016 during an official visit overseas, juxtaposed with the 2020 headline in a way said to give the misleading impression that he had recently travelled abroad for leisure and breached quarantine regulations. The Sessions Court had dismissed the claim, holding that the publication was protected by qualified privilege, that its presentation was not defamatory in law, and that the pleadings failed to comply with Order 92 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012. On appeal the High Court held that the Sessions Court had erred in fact and in law and allowed the appeal in full. It found that a defamatory sting arose from the juxtaposition of the outdated photograph with the headline as understood by the reasonable reader, that the defence of qualified privilege was not established because the responsible-journalism standard in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd had not been met — the respondent having failed to verify the facts or seek the appellant's response, any verification coming only after publication — and that malice could be inferred from the reckless disregard for accuracy and the misleading use of the photograph. It also held that the pleading irregularity was a minor, curable defect. Assessing damages in light of the national readership, the seriousness of the allegation and the misleading imagery, but taking into account the later clarification and the passage of time, the Court awarded a total of RM50,000, comprising RM35,000 in general damages and RM10,000 in aggravated damages, with statutory interest and appeal costs of RM5,000.