MAH YOKE KEONG v 1. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN GENTING PERMAI PARK & RESORT 2. ) CHONG AH KOW @ CHONG CHING CHEE 3. ) NG YOON KIN

Case Significance

Illustrates defamation liability for statements circulated in management-corporation meeting minutes posted in a common area, and the use of Order 1A to prevent a late language-compliance objection from defeating a meritorious claim.

This High Court decision at Temerloh, delivered by Roslan bin Mat Nor J after a full defamation trial, opens with the observation that a person's good name and dignity are a precious jewel and that the law of defamation exists, as a branch of the law of tort, to protect them from statements that lower a person's reputation. The plaintiff, an individual active in various associations, sued a management corporation and two individual office-bearers over statements said to be defamatory. The first defendant is the Perbadanan Pengurusan Genting Permai Park & Resort (the Genting Permai Park & Resort management corporation); the second defendant was its former chairman and the third defendant its former secretary. The plaintiff alleged that defamatory statements were made in the minutes of several committee and annual general meetings held between November 2020 and December 2021, and that those minutes were then distributed and posted on the condominium's notice board, where visitors and guests could read them.

The Court set out the ordinary allocation of proof in defamation: the party alleging defamation must show that the statements complained of are defamatory, whereupon the party who made or published them must establish a recognised defence, such as justification or fair comment (komen yang adil). The Court weighed the evidence against those principles. A subsidiary procedural question also arose — the late objection that the defamatory statements had not been translated into Bahasa Melayu as required by Aturan 92 kaedah 1 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 92 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012), read with Perkara 152 Perlembagaan Persekutuan (Article 152 of the Federal Constitution) and seksyen 8 Akta Bahasa Kebangsaan (section 8 of the National Language Act). The Court held that, invoking Aturan 1A (Order 1A) to secure the just and expeditious disposal of a case filed years earlier, the non-compliance did not defeat the action.

On the merits, the Court found the statements defamatory and the pleaded defences not made out. It allowed the plaintiff's claim, awarded damages of RM150,000 and costs of RM30,000, and made consequential orders. The judgment is a useful illustration of how the courts approach defamation arising from statements circulated in management-corporation meeting minutes posted in a common area, and of the flexible use of Order 1A to prevent a late language-compliance objection from defeating a meritorious claim.