PUTRAJAYA, Nov 11 — A journalist and two others have to pay RM100,000 in general damages to lawyer Datuk V. Muthusamy over a defamatory article published in the New Straits Times 17 years ago.
This is the outcome after the Federal Court on Nov 7 reinstated a decision of the Court of Appeal which held that a report of court proceedings published by the New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd (NSTP) was defamatory.
Federal Court judge Datuk S. Augustine Paul, in his 16-page judgment, ruled that where the report for defamation contained extracts from pleadings, they must have been read out in open court before they could be published.
“This means that pleadings can form part of the report, subject to the stipulation that they must have been read out in open court," he said.
Paul sat with Justices Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman and Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, who were reviewing the decision of an earlier bench.
On Sept 14 last year, the Federal Court ordered the appeal by Joceline Tan Poh Choo, the group editor of NST and the publisher, NSTP, who were sued for defamation, to be reheard before a new panel after ruling that an earlier decision favouring them was unjust.
The five-member panel unanimously set aside the Federal Court's May 13, 2005 decision exempting Tan and two others from paying compensation to a lawyer over a defamatory article published in the NST newspaper.
It allowed Muthusamy's application to review the decision after holding that the case warranted a rehearing because the Federal Court had made a conflicting decision.
The panel comprised Chief Justice of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judges Datuk Alauddin Mohd Sheriff (now Court of Appeal President), Datuk Abdul Aziz Mohamad, Datuk Hashim Yusoff and Datuk Azmel Ma'amor.
Abdul Aziz, in his 21-page judgment, said a rehearing of the appeal was necessary to examine the matter which the court saw as an apparent injustice.
Muthusamy had sued Tan (now no longer with the NST), the group editor of the NST and the publisher, NSTP, for libel over the publication of an article entitled "Lawyer and trader conspired to cheat me, claims driver", which appeared with his photograph in the NST on Sept 12 1991.
He claimed that the report, in its natural and ordinary meaning, meant and was understood to mean that he was a cheat and a dishonest person and not fit to practise law.
The three defendants, in their defence, said the report was fair, accurate and contemporaneous of the proceedings publicly heard before a court and therefore they were protected under the defence of absolute privilege under the Defamation Act 1957.
On Nov 10, 2000, the High Court allowed Muthusamy's claim and ordered the defendants to pay him RM300,000 in general damages and RM50,000 in aggravated damages after ruling that they had failed to prove that the report was fair, accurate and contemporaneous.
The three appealed to the Court of Appeal on liability and quantum while Muthusamy, a former Prai state assemblyman, cross-appealed on the quantum.
On Aug 1, 2003, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on liability but reduced the general damages to RM100,000 and set aside the RM50,000 awarded as aggravated damages. — Bernama
No comments:
Post a Comment