Case Updates

Case Update: Terengganu Sultanah’s Victory Against Defamatory Statements in 1MDB Expose

Share:

Print
29 February 2024

LAW OF DEFAMATION
Impugned Statements – Justifications – Lucas Box – Damages – Publication – Reputation

Tuanku Nur Zahirah v Clare Louise Brown & Ors
Civil Appeal No. W-01(NCvC)(W)-2109-11/2022 | Court of Appeal
- see the grounds of judgment here

Facts The Appellant is the Sultanah for the State of Terengganu. The 1st Respondent is and was at the material time the author of The Sarawak Report: The Insight story of the 1MDB Expose. The 2nd Respondent is the publisher of the said book whereas the 3rd Respondent is the printer of the said book. The book was released in August 2018 where more than 2,000 copies of the said books were sold. The Appellant’s claim is founded on the statement made at page 5 of the said book which the Appellant claims that the impugned statements are defamatory of her. The Appellant’s pleaded case that the impugned statements, in its natural and ordinary meaning and/or imputation is capable of being defamatory as it brings the following imputations that the Appellant interferes with the administration of the state of Terengganu and uses her position to influence and to establish Terengganu Investment Authority and to set up the sovereign wealth fund. At the High Court, after a full trial, the learned JC ruled that the Appellant had failed to prove that the impugned statements is defamatory of her and dismissed the claim. In his judgement, he had observed that none of the parties had provided detailed explanation of the linguistic or grammatical rules in determining the impugned statements. The learned JC stated that as the issue before him concerned English grammar, he had applied the established and normal English grammar rules in determining the meaning of the said words. The learned JC also ruled that in the event that he was wrong in finding that the impugned statements bears no defamatory connotation against the Appellant, the Respondents have successfully established the defence of justification. Unsatisfied with the decision of the Court, the Appellant filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal.

Issues 1. Whether the learned JC was justified in finding that the impugned statements is not defamatory of the Appellant.
2. Whether the learned JC was right in finding that the defence of justification had been established by the Respondent.

Held In allowing the appeal and setting aside the decision of the High Court, Court of Appeal judge, YA Datuk Azhahari Kamal Bin Ramli found that the impugned statements in the book were indeed defamatory of the Appellant. Despite the Respondents’ assertion that the negative comments were directed at the Appellant's action in filing the lawsuit, the Court held that they were related to the allegations of corrupt practices against her. The Respondents asserted a defence of justification, claiming that the impugned statements were true or substantially true. However, the court found that the Respondents had failed to provide an alternative meaning or justification for the statements. Additionally, the Respondents admitted that there was an honest mistake in publishing the statements, further weakening their defence. When assessing damages, the Court took into consideration factors such as lack of remorse from the Respondents, the Appellant’s standing in society, and the extent of publication of the defamatory statements. As a result, the court allowed the Appellant's appeal, set aside the lower court's decision, and ordered the Respondents to jointly pay damages of RM 300,000 to the Appellant.

Zul Rafique & Partners
{29 February 2024}

Please email your details to [email protected] if you would like to subscribe to our Knowledge Centre.

Let's Connect!
➭ LINKEDIN: Zul Rafique & Partners
➭ INSTAGRAM: @zrplaw