Defamation

Tort Defamation Law

· The law on defamation protects people from unjustified character vilification that has the effect of injuring a person/s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society generally.

· The learned editors of Gatley on Libel and Slander, 12th edn, p. 6, state that the 'core concern at the heart of defamation law is the deterring and remedying of unwarranted harm to reputation.' It is a collective term commonly used to refer to the disparate torts of slander and libel.

· While the oral defamatory statement is known as slander, a defamatory statement that is captured in a written form is called libel. A defendant that is found liable for either form of defamation will invariably be ordered to pay damages to his victim. The amount of the award depends on the seriousness of the injurious statement. In cases where general damages are insufficient, aggravated damages are awarded against a defendant whose defamatory statement has caused untold injury to the plaintiff's reputation and character. A genuine show of remorse and an open and unreserved apology may work in favour of a repentant defendant in mitigation.

· Like all civil claims, in a defamation suit bears the burden of having to prove that the impugned statement was defamatory of him, in the sense that his reputation has been harmed unfairly by the defendant.

· The plaintiff will have to prove that in its ordinary and natural meaning, the impugned statement is defamatory of the plaintiff on the manner to determine whether the impugned articles were capable of being defamatory. If the plaintiff succeeds in establishing that factum, the defendant then bears the burden of establishing his pleaded defence of, for instance, justification. Justification essentially means what the defendant has said was the truth. If malice is a relevant consideration, the burden is on the plaintiff to plead malice and henceforth to prove it and not for the defendant to prove the lack of it.

Analysis

1. Whether there exists ‘Defamatory Statements’?

Ø Sin Chew Daily Article / Letters

Ø Oriental Daily News Article / Whatsapp group messages

- It appears that defamatory statements and remarks were published and circulated.

- Persons who made the statements and remarks can also be identified.

2. Whether it can be proven that the alleged statements and remarks are defamatory or by inference or by false innuendo and also it concerns plaintiff?

Ø Plaintiff has to prove each the alleged statements, passages and / or remarks as being defamatory.

- It appears that the alleged statements, passages and / or remarks are capable of bearing each of the defamatory meanings.

- Characterisation and integrity of plaintiff were raised and vilified.

- Plaintiff was said to have been dishonest on audit and finance.

- Plaintiff was said to have intentionally blocked classes from being conducted.

- Plaintiff was said to have telling lies and uncooperative and failed to answered queries.

- Plaintiff had been frame as perpetrator who caused all disputes and disintegration of the Division.

- Plaintiff was said to have committed breach of trust and misused member’s names to set up a non-profit organisastion.

- Reasonable persons who know the plaintiff would conclude that the defamatory statements refer to him.

- The alleged statements, passages and / or remarks made imputation on plaintiff, injurious to his office and profession as chairman.

- Therefore, it is likely that plaintiff can succeed in proving its case.

Defences

3. Whether the defendants would be able to defend themselves on the basis of fair comment and justification.

Ø What is really relevant was actually the truth of the imputation of the overall statement and that therefore the issue is whether in substance and in fact the imputation of the statements is true.

Ø On the balance of probabilities.

Ø A person’s honest belief in the truth of the defamatory words is no defence if the defamatory words turn out to be untrue.

- Defendants have to show and prove that the defamatory statements, passages and / or remarks are true or substantially true.

- If Defendants are able to prove the truism then the defendants will succeed on his defence of justification.

- Alternatively, if the defendants are able to prove that the defamatory statements, passages and / or remarks are comments as opposed to statements of fact; it is based on facts proven to be true and fair; and it is a matter of public interest, the defendants will succeed on his defence of fair comment.

- Therefore, if the circulated and published defamatory statements, passages and / or remarks are true facts, it is unlikely that plaintiff will succeed.

The opinion provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are based on my personal views and for general informational purposes only. The opinion may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.

Readers should contact your own lawyers to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, or browser should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without first seeking legal advice from your lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction. All rights reserved.