Many people think, “It wasn’t me who said it. I was just repeating it.”
The reality is, the law does not recognise the excuse of “just repeating” when someone’s reputation is destroyed.
This case began when a senior lawyer filed a defamation suit after statements about him were published by the media. The statements originated from a politician and related to the plaintiff’s role in a high-profile criminal case. The media picked it up, published it, and repeated it — without verification, without balance, and without giving the plaintiff a right of reply.
On the surface, it appeared to be an issue of freedom of speech and public interest. But once brought before the court, the real question was: did the publication damage a person’s professional reputation?
The court explained that in a defamation action, three elements must be present — the statement must be defamatory, it must refer to the plaintiff, and it must be published to a third party. In this case, the court found that the articles and broadcasts conveyed the meaning that the plaintiff was a lawyer lacking integrity and abusing court processes. That was not mere criticism. That was defamation.
The media attempted to rely on the Defamation Act 1957 — Section 8 (justification), Section 9 (fair comment), and Sections 11 and 12 (privilege relating to reports and newspapers). All failed. Why?
Because the reporting was neither neutral, nor balanced, nor carried out responsibly.
The court also rejected the defence of qualified privilege and the concept of responsible journalism. It emphasised a crucial point: when the media chooses to repeat serious allegations without verification and without obtaining a response from the accused party, it cannot hide behind “public interest.”
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal held that the publication was defamatory and allowed the plaintiff’s claim, including damages. The principle is clear — anyone involved in the publication of defamatory material remains liable, even if they were not the original source of the statement.
This case is not just a story about the media. It is a warning to business owners, professionals, founders, directors, and public figures. One article. One video. One unverified statement. That is all it takes to destroy a reputation built over decades.
In the end, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the publication was indeed defamatory. The court allowed the plaintiff’s claim and awarded damages totalling RM350,000, including general and aggravated damages, recognising that the plaintiff’s professional reputation had been seriously tarnished.
Lesson learned:
If your name is dragged through the mud, your reputation attacked, or your business damaged — do not wait until it becomes irreversible. Defamation left unanswered will be treated as truth by the public.
