Issues:

Whether Chef See Deh could take action against Chef Becok for
defamation?
Principle of law:
Defamation exists where there is publication that has tendency to
lower the persons reputation or to cause him to be shunned or avoided by
reasonable person in society and thereby adversely affecting his
reputation. The applicable law in Malaysia in governing this tort case is
Defamation Act 1957.
According to Lord Atkins in the case of Sim v Stretch, defamatory
statement is one which injuries the reputation of another by exposing him
to hatred, contempt or ridicule or which tends to lower him in the esteem
of right-thinking members of society.
There are two different type of defamation namely libel and
slander. Libel is defamation in a permanent form. It is visible to the eye
for example written form, pictures, statutes, effigies (figure of a person).
Section 3 of Defamation Act 1957 states that broadcasting of words by
means of radio communication shall be treated as publication in a
permanent form and constitutes libel. This type of defamation is
actionable per see. Plaintiff needs not to prove damage.
Slander is defamation in temporary form for instance spoken words
or gestures. It is not actionable per se. For example, plaintiff needs to
proof actual or special damage to succeed in his action. Actual damage is
actual financial loss or any loss that may be measured in monetary term
for example loss in business, employment or chance to attend social
function that may be measured in monetary term.

Defamation in this case is in a permanent form, which is libel.

Thus no prove of special damage is necessary provided that all elements
of defamation are established. In order to prove defamation, the plaintiff
must establish the three elements of defamation which are the words are
defamatory the word refers to the plaintiff and the words must be
published.
First elements is the words are defamatory which mean the words
must tend to lower he estimation of the plaintiff in the minds of right
thinking members of society so that the plaintiff is shunned, avoided and
ridiculed. The court will consider the tendency of response by a
reasonable man to the words. If it is proven as a fact that has a
consequence of the defendants words people actually do avoid the
plaintiff then the test is whether they are reasonable justified in
understanding the words in a defamatory way. Words may be defamatory
in three ways, which are natural and ordinary meaning the way of
innuendo and by way of juxtaposition. In this situation, the words stated
are defamatory by way of innuendo.
Innuendo refers to indirect and unpleasant remark. In innuendo
defamation does not arise from literal meanings of words but by special
facts or circumstances known by recipient or reader of the words.
Innuendo may be true or false. First is a false innuendo arises from a
combination of statements or pictures the words speak for. Plaintiff is not
allowed to explain the meaning or inferences that can be drawn from the
words. The words must speak for themselves. In case of Syed Husin Ali v
Syarikat Percetakan Utusan Melayu Bhd, a newspaper published the
following statement about the plaintiff: The Menteri Besar considers
Syed Husin Ali as wanting to arouse the hatred of the Malaysian people
against the government and the British, the university lecturer was
spreading subversive ideas in order to poison the thoughts of the Malay.
The court held that thought inference or implication the words conveyed
the meaning that the Plaintiff was dishonest, disloyal to the government a
subversive element and ungrateful. The court awarded damages to the
plaintiff for the defamatory statement.
True or legal innuendo arises from special facts that are known to
the recipient of the publication. This special knowledge will cause the
words to be defamatory to the plaintiff. Words are defamatory to those
who possess the special knowledge. In Tolley v Fry & Sons Ltd, plaintiff
was an amateur golfer while defendant is a choc manufacturer. An
advertisement in a newspaper, a caricature of the plaintiff playing golf
with a bar of defendants chocolate, sticking out of his trouser pocket. A
caddy was seen pointing to the plaintiff, indicating that the plaintiffs

performance was as good as the quality of the defendants chocolate. The

advertisement was for the defendants choc. The words/picture were not
defamatory on the face of it but the innuendo was that the plaintiff had
received payment for the advertisement. Defendant liable as those who
knew the plaintiff status may assume plaintiff consented and been paid
for the advertisement.
Second element is the words must refer to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff must prove the defendants words refer to him. The test to be
applied is objective test, which are the words it would be reasonable in
the circumstances to lead persons acquainted with the plaintiff to believe
that he was the person referred to? The plaintiff need not necessarily
named may be described (word, picture & etc) so as to be organized. In
Atip bin Ali v Josephine Nunis & Anor the defendant sued Datuk Rahim
Thamby Chik for breach of promise to marry but did not pursued her
claim after the writ had been filed. The newspaper found out about the
writ and published the matter. The plaintiff and all UMNO members of
Alai Melaka claimed that as a result of the publication the members of
PAS and Wanita UMNO avoided them because they supported an
adulterer. The court held that the word UMNO did not appear in the writ.
If any part was defamed it was Datuk Rahim Thamby Chik himself and
only he could have taken action but not the UMNO members.
The third element is the words must be published. Publication
means dissemination of the defamatory words or materials to a third party
other than plaintiff. In Dr. Jenni Ibrahim v S Pakianatham, plaintiff a
psychologist working on voluntary basis at Help Center in Kg Bercham,
Perak. Defendant wrote two letters indicating that plaintiff had commited
breach of trust, RM 70k. Copies of one of the letters were sent to all
directors of Centre, Direcor of Welfare Services. In order to establish
publication must consider the following factors. One of the factors is
language used is understood by third party. Another factors is plaintiff
must be able to specify what exactly was said or written by the defendant
and the third is plaintiff must be able to prove identities of persons to
whom the defamatory words are published and if the words are repeated
or copied a new defamation arises.