HANNAH YEOH TSEOW SUAN v KAMARUL ZAMAN BIN HAJI YUSOFF

Case Significance

Illustrates the proof of defamation over social media publications and the award of general and aggravated damages, together with an injunction, where malice aggravates the wrong.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns a defamation action brought by a public figure over two articles published on social media, and it illustrates the assessment of general, aggravated and other relief in a libel claim involving malice. The plaintiff, an advocate and solicitor who is also a serving Member of Parliament and a former Speaker of a State Legislative Assembly and former Deputy Minister, had published an autobiography, and the defendant wrote and published two articles on a social media page in May 2017 that were alleged to contain defamatory statements about her. The plaintiff sued for defamation, seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages, an injunction, and a public retraction and apology. After a full trial the court's task was to determine whether the plaintiff had proved that the publications were defamatory of her, whether the defendant had any defence, and, if liability were established, the appropriate measure of damages and other relief, including the relevance of malice. The court found that the plaintiff had proved her claim on a balance of probabilities. In assessing relief the court had regard to the standing and public position of the plaintiff, the reach of the publications, and the conduct of the defendant said to evidence malice, which is the feature that elevates an award of general damages into aggravated damages by reflecting the additional injury to feelings and reputation caused by the manner of the publication. On relief, it awarded a global sum of RM400,000.00 as general and aggravated damages, apportioned as RM200,000.00 for each of the two publications, with interest at 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the writ until judgment and 5 per cent per annum thereafter until full payment, and it granted an injunction restraining the defendant, his servants or agents, from publishing the impugned words or anything similar. Costs of RM80,000.00 were awarded to the plaintiff. The defendant is pursuing an appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of the proof of defamation over social media publications and of the award of general and aggravated damages, together with an injunction, where malice aggravates the wrong.