Defamatory Statements
Elements
Defamatory words:
TEST is its tendency to excite against pt adverse opinion of others, although no one believes it to be true. Another test is would the words tend to lower the pt in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally?' - SYED HUSIN
LEWIS v DAILY TELEGRAPH
Df published pt under Investigation by fraud squad. Right thinking members would wait for the outcome of Inquiry
M AZWAN ALI
The statement caused embarrassment to pt. But wasn't def. because it was just a joke.
CASSIDY v DAILY MIRROR
Df didn't know Mr Cassidy was married when pub. Art. Mr. C got engaged. Immaterial.
Natural & ordinary meaning: the words by themselves as understood by men of ordinary intelligence must have the tendency to make them look down on pt.
SYED HUSIN
Words in original natural meaning are defamatory.
Innuendo: a remark that suggests something w/o directly saying it,
False Innuendo: the hidden meaning of the words are obvious.
SYED HUSIN
Pt claimed under false innuendo.
True innuendo: when the words coupled with external facts make word defamatory
Pt must prove:
1. External facts
2. One or more who heard words knew external facts
3. Wrds + facts is defamatory
TOLLEY v FRY & SONS
MONSON v TUSSAUDS
AYOB BN SAUD - 'daylight robbery' not defamatory as false innuendo.
Reference to pt:
ATIP BIN ALI - only the person who was referred to In the defamatory statement can sue.
UMMI HAFILDA - an ordinary man reading the defamatory words would have no doubt whom it was referring to.
EHULTON v JONES - Df published def st abt fictitious 'Artemus Jones'. Artemus Jones is a barrister
NEWSTEAD v LONDON EXPRESS
MORGAN v ODHAMS
People thought reporter member of gang.
Section 7 of Defamation Act: Unintentional Defamation & Section 10 of Defamation Act: mitigation of damages - KNUPPFER
TENGKU JAAFAR v KARPAL SINGH
Publication: (communication) of the word to at least one person other than claimant.
•internet: YING v TARO: def letter sent to Japan. Can't sue in Malaysian Session Court
DOW JONES v JAMEEL
* If 3rd Party not intended to read letter reads it: If df could hve reasonably foreseen the possibility df will b liable.
HUTH v HUTH: df sent def letter to pt unsealed. Butler read.
*lf def words not intelligible or not understood by 3rd prty: LUK KAI LAM
* Pub between husband & wife:
- If husband publishes to wife about 3rd party no publication
- If third party publishes to a spouse about other spouse publication. THEAKER
Elements
Defamatory words:
TEST is its tendency to excite against pt adverse opinion of others, although no one believes it to be true. Another test is would the words tend to lower the pt in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally?' - SYED HUSIN
LEWIS v DAILY TELEGRAPH
Df published pt under Investigation by fraud squad. Right thinking members would wait for the outcome of Inquiry
M AZWAN ALI
The statement caused embarrassment to pt. But wasn't def. because it was just a joke.
CASSIDY v DAILY MIRROR
Df didn't know Mr Cassidy was married when pub. Art. Mr. C got engaged. Immaterial.
Natural & ordinary meaning: the words by themselves as understood by men of ordinary intelligence must have the tendency to make them look down on pt.
SYED HUSIN
Words in original natural meaning are defamatory.
Innuendo: a remark that suggests something w/o directly saying it,
False Innuendo: the hidden meaning of the words are obvious.
SYED HUSIN
Pt claimed under false innuendo.
True innuendo: when the words coupled with external facts make word defamatory
Pt must prove:
1. External facts
2. One or more who heard words knew external facts
3. Wrds + facts is defamatory
TOLLEY v FRY & SONS
MONSON v TUSSAUDS
AYOB BN SAUD - 'daylight robbery' not defamatory as false innuendo.
Reference to pt:
ATIP BIN ALI - only the person who was referred to In the defamatory statement can sue.
UMMI HAFILDA - an ordinary man reading the defamatory words would have no doubt whom it was referring to.
EHULTON v JONES - Df published def st abt fictitious 'Artemus Jones'. Artemus Jones is a barrister
NEWSTEAD v LONDON EXPRESS
MORGAN v ODHAMS
People thought reporter member of gang.
Section 7 of Defamation Act: Unintentional Defamation & Section 10 of Defamation Act: mitigation of damages - KNUPPFER
TENGKU JAAFAR v KARPAL SINGH
Publication: (communication) of the word to at least one person other than claimant.
•internet: YING v TARO: def letter sent to Japan. Can't sue in Malaysian Session Court
DOW JONES v JAMEEL
* If 3rd Party not intended to read letter reads it: If df could hve reasonably foreseen the possibility df will b liable.
HUTH v HUTH: df sent def letter to pt unsealed. Butler read.
*lf def words not intelligible or not understood by 3rd prty: LUK KAI LAM
* Pub between husband & wife:
- If husband publishes to wife about 3rd party no publication
- If third party publishes to a spouse about other spouse publication. THEAKER
