Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
DEFAMATION by Mind Map: DEFAMATION

1. Definition

1.1. Dato' Musa bin Hitam v SH Alattas

1.1.1. a publication - tendency to lower reputation - cause to be shunned/avoided by reasonable persons in society - adversely affecting reputation

2. Types

2.1. Libel

2.1.1. permanent, visible, writing, email, pictures, Section 3 of Defamation Act 1957 (broadcasting of words by radio communication), actionable per se

2.2. Slander

2.2.1. temporary, spoken words, gestures, not actionable per se. Must prove actual damage. Actual damage is actual financial loss/any loss measured monetarily. Like loss of business, employment. Damage must be natural and foreseeable as the direct result of D's words.

2.2.1.1. Rainy v Bravo (procedural requirement)

2.2.1.1.1. cannot merely state impression produced from his mind or his witnesses' minds.

2.2.1.1.2. not sufficient for plaintiff to tender evidence to what his witnesses conceived or effect of the words

2.2.2. EXCEPTIONS: actionable per se

2.2.2.1. 1) SLANDER TO WOMAN (Section 4) words impute unchastity/adultery

2.2.2.1.1. LUK KAI LAM v SIM AI LENG

2.2.2.1.2. UMMI HAFILDA ALI v KETUA SETIAUSAHA PARTI ISLAM SE MALAYSIA (PAS)

2.2.2.2. 2) SLANDER TO A PERSON'S PROFESSIONAL OR BUSINESS REPUTATION (Section 5) -must be at profession at the time words were spoken -amount to misconduct

2.2.2.2.1. JOHN TAN CHOR-YONG v LEE CHAY TIAN

2.2.2.2.2. WORKERS' PARTY v TAY BOON TOO

2.2.2.2.3. JB JEYARETNAM v GOH CHOK TONG (words must disparage the plaintiff in his office of profit (plaintiff receives monetary remuneration from holding tht office))

2.2.2.3. 3) SLANDER TO TITLE, OF GOODS AND MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD-protects interest in his property/trade (Section 6(1)(a), 6(1)(b), 6(2)

2.2.2.3.1. BORNEO POST SDN BHD v SARAWAK PRESS SDN BHD

2.2.2.3.2. RATUS MESRA SDN BHD v SHAIK OSMAN MAJID: prove-

2.2.2.4. 4) IMPUTATION OF CONTAGIOUS DISEASE.

2.2.2.4.1. words must infer that P suffers tht disease when it's published

2.2.2.5. 5) IMPUTATION OF A CRIME -death penalty, whipping, imprisonment

2.2.2.5.1. rationale: reasonable persons would avoid a convicted person or with serious punishment

3. Elements to be proved:

3.1. 1) words are defamatory -satisfied when words hv tendency to lower estimation of plaintiff in minds of right thinking society - plaintiff exposed to hatred/ridiculed

3.1.1. a) Natural or ordinary meaning -no need to prove special knowledge, to consider what meaning the words would convey to ordinary reasonable man using his common sense and general knowledge

3.1.1.1. HASNUL BIN ABDUL HADI v BULAT BIN MOHAMED (abu jahal)

3.1.1.2. INSTITUTE OF COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT UK v NEWS STRAIT TIMES (MALAYSIA) BHD

3.1.2. b) False innuendo -words r defamatory due to inferences/implications arising from them -P cant explain meaning/inferences tht can be drawn from words/pics. words speak for themselves

3.1.2.1. SYED HUSIN ALI v SHARIKAT PENCHETAKAN UTUSAN MELAYU BHD

3.1.2.2. LEE KUAN YEW v JB JEYARETNAM

3.1.2.3. CHUA JUI MENG v HOO KOK WING

3.1.3. c) True/legal innuendo -due to special facts known to the recipient of the publication

3.1.3.1. TAN SRI DATO VINCENT TAN v HAJI HASAN BIN HAMZAH

3.1.3.1.1. 1) external facts, combined with the defamatory words in nature

3.1.3.1.2. 2) the external facts known by 1/more persons

3.1.3.1.3. 3) knowledge of these facts may cause the words to be defamatory in the eyes of reasonable men who r privy to the special facts

3.1.3.2. TOLLEY v FRY & SONS LTD

3.1.3.3. R MURUGASON v THE STRAIT TIMES PRESS LTD

3.1.4. d) Juxtaposition -involves situation tht employs visual effects - arise from material other than writing or spoken words

3.1.4.1. MONSOON v TUSSAUDS

3.1.4.2. DATUK SYED KECHIK BIN SYED MOHAMED v DATUK YEH PAO TZU

3.1.4.3. RAJAGOPAL v RAJAN (intention is irrelevant, unless malice)

3.1.5. d) juxtaposition

3.2. 2) words refer to plaintiff

3.2.1. test to establish: DAVID SYME v CANAVAN

3.2.2. ATIP BIN ALI v JOSEPHINE DORIS NUNIS

3.2.3. HULTON & CO v JONES

3.2.4. extrinsic facts: SANDISON v MALAYAN TIMES LTD

3.2.5. To prove by external facts: AJA PETER v OG NIO:

3.2.5.1. 1) exists external facts, which link to the defamatory words

3.2.5.2. 2) words published to persons who had actual knowledge of the facts

3.2.5.3. 3) tht imputing knowledge of the facts to a reasonable man lead him to conclude the words referred to plaintiff

3.2.6. class /group defamation: D wont be liable unless ada specific reference to P /certain individuals in a group

3.2.6.1. KNUPFFER v LONDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD

3.2.6.2. EASTWOOD v HOLMES

3.2.6.3. BRUCE v ODHAMS PRESS LTD

3.3. 3) published - dissemination to a 3rd party

3.3.1. MATCHPLAN SDN BHD v WILLIAM D SINRICH

3.3.2. DR JENNI IBRAHIM v S PAKIANATHAN

3.3.3. JOEL SALAYSAY v MEDICAL LABORATORY PTE LTD

3.3.4. THEAKER v RICHARDSON

3.3.5. EXCEPTIONSSSSSS

4. DEFENCES

4.1. Consent/Assent and Volenti Non Fit Injuria

4.1.1. NORMALA SAMSUDIN v KELUARGA COMMUNICATION SDN BHD

4.1.2. COOKSON v HAREWOOD

4.2. Justification -once proven to be true, the law wont protect the P. -Section 8

4.2.1. S8: ABDUL RAHMAN TALIB v SEENIVASAGAM

4.2.2. S PAKIANATHAN v DR JENNI IBRAHIM

4.3. Fair comment -honestly/fairly made (Section 9)

4.3.1. 1) words must be in form of fair comment, not statement of fact

4.3.1.1. MEERAN LEBBAIK MAULLIM v J MOHAMED ISMAIL MARICAN & THE STRAITS PRINTING WORKS

4.3.1.2. LEE KUAN YEW v DEREK GWYN DAVIES: test check out page 300

4.3.2. 2) comment must be based on true facts

4.3.2.1. SB PALMER v AS RAJAH

4.3.3. 3) comment is fair, not malicious

4.3.3.1. RAJAGOPAL v RAJAN

4.3.4. 4) comment concerns public interest/importance

4.3.4.1. HENRY WONG JAN FOOK

4.4. Privilege

4.4.1. 1) Qualified privilege (Statute) Section 12(1) like newspaper (S2) and broadcasting stations (S13(1))

4.4.2. 2) Common law qualified privilege

4.4.3. 3) Absolute privilege

4.4.3.1. TIMES PUBLISHING BHD v S SIVADAS

4.5. Unintentional defamation Section 7

4.6. Innocent dissemination

4.6.1. VIZETELLY v MUDIE'S SELECT LIBRARY LTD -prove:

4.6.1.1. 1) innocent of any knowledge that the publication had libel

4.6.1.2. 2) nothing in the work which was disseminated by him which ought to have led him to suppose it's libel

4.6.1.3. 3) when disseminated it wansnt negligent on his part and didnt know it had libel

4.7. Immunity

4.7.1. DATO' PARAM CUMARASWAMY v MBF CAPITAL BHD

4.8. Apology

4.8.1. KELUARGA COMMUNICATION v NORMALA SAMSUDIN

4.9. MITIGATION OF DAMAGES

4.9.1. if accepted by court it'll lower the damages.