Question 2
CSS5
23120391/1 PHANG ZHENG KANG
2402717/1 ERDINA SYIRIN BINTI MOHAMAD
FIRDAUS
23119999/1 ARIANNA ASMARA BINTI MASRI
23113938/1 AMYLEA NATASHA BINTI AMRAN
PHANG ZHENG KANG
231119999/1
INTRODUCTION
Defamation refers to a false statement that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation
includes both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements). In Malaysia, defamation is
governed by The Defamation Act 1957, at the same time courts also rely on both statutory law and
common precedents. Defamation is a tricky area of law as the lines between stating an opinion versus a
fact can be vague and defamation tests the limits of the freedom of speech.
Law of Defamation
“In our law on libel, which is governed by the Defamation Act 1957, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff
to show (1) the words are defamatory; (2) the words refer to the plaintiff, and (3) the words were
published”.
In Malaysia, defamation is both civil wrong and criminal offence, governed primarily by the Defamation
Act 1957 and supplemented by common law principles. Action for defamation brings into sharp focus the
delicate balance between freedom of expression and the right to protect one’s reputation, especially
when public accusations are made without verification.
QUESTION 2: LEGAL SCENARIO –
DEFAMATION
Rocket, a promising university athlete, was preparing for the National Sports Championship when the
Sports Association suddenly disqualified him for allegedly using performance-enhancing [Link]
accusation stemmed from a viral TikTok video posted by Slanderman, a rival athlete, showing Rocket at a
gym with the misleading caption "Doping to win? Guess hard work isn’t enough for some people." The
video gained massive traction, with news outlets reporting on the accusation.
As a result, Rocket was dropped by sponsors, suspended from his university team, and faced online
harassment and public shaming. Even though Slanderman later admitted he had no proof and deleted the
video, Rocket’s reputation and career were severely damaged.
Advise Rocket on whether he can take legal action against Slanderman for defamation under the
Defamation Act 1957 of Malaysia. Provide legal advice by applying the relevant laws and principles.
231119999/1 ARIANNA ASMARA BINTI MASRI
RELEVANT LAWS
Reputation & Profession Malicious Falsehood Apology & Mitigation
(Section 5) (Section 6) (Section 10)
Apology must be formal, timely, and notified
Slander affecting office/profession/calling No need to prove damage if false statement
Vincent Tan case: No apology = higher
doesn’t need special damage proof likely causes monetary loss
damages
Syed Husin Ali: Lecturer defamed; profession John Tan: False statements hurt lawyer's
harmed credibility
Slanderman deleted video but gave no
Rocket: University athlete, with sponsorships = Rocket’s reputation loss = pecuniary harm apology → defense likely fails
“calling”
231119999/1 ARIANNA ASMARA BINTI MASRI
ISSUE: Whether Rocket can take legal action against Slanderman for
defamation under the Defamation Act 1957 of Malaysia
Actionable Section 3
Libel Broadcasted content (e.g., TikTok,
Defamation in permanent
per se radio) is treated as libel
Case: Mohamed Azwan v Sistem
No need to prove actual
form (e.g., text, video, Televisyen (M) – TV defamation
damage
images) treated as libel
DEFAMATION OVERVIEW RELEVENT LAW
231119999/1 ARIANNA ASMARA BINTI MASRI
APPLICATION TO CASE CONCLUSION:
TikTok falsely implied doping: “Doping to win?” Defamation elements under Act fulfilled
Rocket suffered: Sponsorship loss, suspension, Slanderman likely liable
online harassment No valid apology defense
Post = libel, career harm = calling, statement = Rocket has a strong claim under the Defamation
malicious Act 1957
24062717/1 ERDINA SYIRIN BINTI MOHAMAD FIRDAUS
Justification Fair Comment Qualified Privilege
Under the Defamation Act Under the Defamation Act Under common law
1957 (Malaysia), Section 8 1957 (Malaysia), Section 9
Under the Defamation Law 1957 of Malaysia:
Section 8: the defence of justification can be applicable if the defendant can prove the defamation is
substantially true.
Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd (SYABAS) v. Tony Pua Kiam Wee [2015] 6 MLJ 187
Section 9: the defence of fair comment, if the defamatory statement includes both facts and opinions,
the defence can still be relevant even if not all the facts mentioned are proven to be true, provided that:
the expression of opinion is considered fair after reviewing the proven facts.
the defamatory statement must be recognised as an honest opinion
pertain to a matter of public interest
be made without malice.
Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v. The New Straits Times Press (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2010] 2 MLJ
492
Under common law, the defence of qualified privilege can be used if
the defamatory statement is expressed with the right intentions where the person who said it has a
legal, moral, or social duty to deliver
the recipient must legitimately have an interest in hearing it.
Dato' Dr Low Bin Tick v. Datuk Chong Tho Chin 8 CLJ 369
APPLICATION
Section 8 of the Defamation Act 1957 (Malaysia) can not be applied to Slanderman as he admitted he had
no evidence of the allegation of Rocket doping.
The statement, “Doping to win? Guess hard work isn’t enough for some people” insinuated that
Rocket was cheating which is a severe & damaging accusation towards an athlete.
Since Slanderman’s account had no factual basis, the defence of justification would be unsuccessful.
Slanderman is also not eligible for the provision under Section 9 of the Defamation Act 1957 (Malaysia).
Despite doping in sports being a subject of public interest,
Slanderman’s TikTok video did not provide any verifiable proof that claimed Rocket participated in
such act.
The sarcastic tone of the caption suggests malicious intent, especially with existing rivalrywith
Slanderman being an opponent in the National Sports Championship. This further weakens the
element of the statement being recognised as an honest opinion.
Thus, the defence of fair comment would fail.
APPLICATION
The defence of qualified privilege is not applicable in this case
It was published on a public platform (TikTok), rather than directing it to a specific individual or group
with a genuine interest in the information.
Slanderman had no duty to disclose such information to the public, nor was the statement made in
response to any inquiry or request.
The element of malice, suggested by the existing rivalry and the apparent intention to damage
Rocket’s reputation with his remark, also defeats the protection of this defence.
Therefore, the defence of qualified privilege would not be successful.
Improbable that Slanderman will be able to rely on the defences provided by the Defamation Act 1957 of
Malaysia or common law.
due to his inability to demonstrate the validity of his accusation which undermines justification.
fair comment is undermined as he failed to provide a reasonable opinion based on facts and implied
malice in his statement.
Slanderman can not depend on the defence of qualified privilege, as the statement was publicly made
without any legal, moral, or social duty to notify the public. It was also not directed to a specific
audience with such interest. The presence of malice further disqualifies this defence.
As a result, Rocket has a strong case to initiate a defamation lawsuit against Slanderman for the
harmful damages done to his reputation and career.
He should strive to pursue remedies like damages, an injunction to stop further defamatory
remarks, and a public apology during the legal proceedings.
Lawfirm
Presentation
PHANG ZHENG KANG
23120391/1
General damage Aggravated damage Exemplary damage
To compensate for injury to Awarded where the These are awarded to punish
reputation, emotional distress, defendant acted with malice, the defendant for their
and humiliation caused by the showed a lack of remorse, or malicious or outrageous
defamatory statement worsened the impact of the conduct
defamation
23120391/1 PHANG ZHENG KANG
Although the Defamation Act 1957 didn’t mentioned specific remedies in a specific section, Malaysia
courts through common law, still grant several forms of remedies to a successful plaintiff in a defamation
claim:
In Lim Guan Eng v Tan Sri Mahiaddin Yassin (2023), the High Court awarded
(a)General damages of RM1,050,000 (RM350,000 for each defamatory statement);
(b)Aggravated damages of RM150,000;
(c)Exemplary damages of RM150,000;
(d)A retraction of all three defamatory statements by the Defendant from his social media accounts
immediately;
(e)An injunction restraining the Defendant whether by himself, his employees, servants, agents, or
otherwise from issuing or publishing or reissuing or republishing the three defamatory statements or
any similar words defamatory to the Plaintiff
23120391/1 PHANG ZHENG KANG
In Lim Guan Eng v Tan Sri Mahiaddin Yassin (2023), both general and aggravated defamation were
awarded by the High Court. The court considered the continuous publication of defamatory statements
and found that the Defendant had full knowledge of the said letter from Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar. He also
had resources at his disposal to verify and confirm whether his understanding was correct on the facts.
Yet, he did not do so and continued to make further defamatory statements against the Plaintiff after the
latter had brought to his attention the falsity of such allegations in the defamatory statement(s).The court
emphasized the malicious intent behind the statements and the public harm caused, which parallels
Rocket’s situation, where Slanderman’s public accusations caused widespread reputational harm and
career damage.
PHANG ZHENG KANG
23120391/1
APPLICATION
In this case, Slanderman posted a misleading TikTok video of Rocket with the caption: “Doping to win?
Guess hard work isn’t enough for some people.” This implied that Rocket used illegal performance-
enhancing drugs to gain an unfair advantage. Though the video did not directly state the accusation, the
innuendo and context clearly mentioned doping, especially when shared publicly with Rocket shown in
the gym room.
The video went viral and news outlets picked it up, significantly amplifying the reputational damage.
Consequently, Rocket was disqualified from a major sports event, dropped by sponsors, suspended from
his university team, and subjected to public shaming. Although Slanderman later admitted there was no
proof and deleted the video, the harm had already been done.
PHANG ZHENG KANG
APPLICATION
23120391/1
Given the extent of reputational harm and emotional distress, Rocket may claim:
General damages for the loss of sponsorship, team suspension, and reputational injury.
Aggravated damages, especially since Slanderman posted the video without proof, allowed it to go
viral, and only deleted it after substantial damage had occurred.
An injunction, to restrain Slanderman from reposting or making further defamatory comments in the
future.
Rocket is unlikely to obtain Exemplary damages, as Malaysian courts rarely grant them in defamation
cases. The primary aim is to compensate, not punish. Such damages are typically reserved for cases
involving extreme malice or outrageous conduct, which may not be fully satisfied here.
PHANG ZHENG KANG
23120391/1
Rocket is likely awarded for general and aggravated damages,he may also seek for an injunction,
provided the court finds that Slanderman’s actions constitute defamation and caused serious harm. The
conduct and timing of the deletion, combined with the lack of initial evidence, further support a claim for
aggravated damages.
Challenges with Apology in
modern platforms mitigation
Section 13 does not Apologies are allowed for the
specifically mention about defendant (Slanderman) yet
modern platforms such as it has to be before
TikTok. precedence.
Viral content on these However, it would not restore
platforms spread quickly and the damages done
would still be accessible
after removal.
Amylea Natasha
23113938/1
It is evident that Rocket possesses a strong and justifiable claim against Slanderman under the
Defamation Act 1957 of Malaysia.
The elements required to prove defamation are satisfied✔
defamatory content
reference to the plaintiff
publication
The defamatory statement was published on TikTok with a deceptive caption.
Challenges with
suggested dishonourable conduct and has significantly harmed Rocket’s reputation, career and
modern platforms
mental well-being.
The gravity of the issue has become severe due to the widespread dissemination of the video.
No legitimate defence under the Act or common law applies to Slanderman's actions.
had no justification for posting the statement publicly
appeared to have done so maliciously
had no moral, legal or social obligation to do so.
Given the defences that are available for the case such as the defence of qualified privilege,
❌
justification, and fair comment, they are all inapplicable to Slanderman.
Consequently, Rocket is entitled to seek remedies, including
general damages for reputational harm,
aggravated damages due to malicious nature of the post,
potentially an injunction to stop any further defamatory actions.
With that, Rocket is entitled to remedies,
including general damages for reputational harm,
aggravated damages,
and potentially an injunction to avoid further defamatory actions.
While the Defamation Act 1957 presents Rocket a solid basis for his claim, it has some challenges and
limitations when applied to modern platforms like TikTok.
lack of specific provisions for social media.
Although courts may interpret existing sections to cover digital content, the evolving nature of online
defamation and procedural limitations could influence the final outcome of the case.
Ultimately, this case emphasises the significant role of people’s reputations in the
era of social media where fallacious allegations can rapidly intensify and cause
long-term issues.
Rocket should be encouraged to file a lawsuit in order to repair his reputation and
obtain compensation for the harm he had to endure.
See You Later