DEFAMATION  Case: Lee Kuan Yew v JB Jeyaretnam
 Held: natural and ordinary meaning implied that PM
Elements
i. Defamatory words
 Statement that forms subject matter of his complaint
is defamatory.
 GR: words have tendency to lower the estimation of
P in the minds of right thinking members of society so
P would be exposed to hatred, avoided & shunned.
 The court would look at the tendency of response or
reaction of reasonable man.
 It does not matter that no one believed the words to
be true.
 Actual words are important, as P must know what
was said abt him.
 Words uttered in anger is not defamatory and the
words, standing alone would be defamatory.
(a) Natural & ordinary meaning
 Means if they impute that P is dishonourable or of
discreditable conduct or lacks integrity.
 Words themselves (insert reasonable man thingy),
can make them avoid P.
 No need for P to prove special knowledge and words
must be read in the context of the whole publication.
 Case: Institute of Commercial Management United
Kingdom v New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd
 Held: any ordinary reasonable person reading the
article would link ICM with one of those org operated
as ‘diploma mills’. The words have a strong tendency
to lower P’s reputation.
(b) False innuendo
 Means when words are defamatory to P due to
inferences or implications arising from them.
 May arise from combo of statements & pictures.
 When defamatory words based on false innuendo, P
cannot explain the meaning or inferences that can be
drawn from the pics.
 Words must speak for themselves.
had gained & secured personal financial advantage
for himself & family members from his position.
Defamation was established.
(c) True innuendo
 Arises due to special facts known to recipient of the
publication.
 Special knowledge cause the words to be defamatory
of P & refers to additional factors known.
 P must prove:
- exists external facts other than the words + D’s
defamatory words.
- facts known by one or more person
- knowledge of facts cause reasonable man to think
it’s defamatory
 Case: Tolley v Fry & Sons Ltd (Chocolate & golf)
 Held: D liable as those who knew P’s status may
reasonably assume that P consented to and had been
paid for the ads
(d) Juxtaposition
 Involves situation that employs visual effects.
 Case: Monsoon v Tussauds
 D liable for defamation bcs crime against P was not
proven and was released and that the statute of P
among other criminals is defamatory.
 Intention is irrelevant
ii. Words refer to plaintiff
 Sufficient for those who know P believed that he is
the person referred to.
 Ordinary reader must be fair minded
 Case: Atip Ali v Josephine Doris Nunis & Anor
 Held: The word UMNO did not appear on the writ. If
any party defamed, it was Datuk Rahim Thamby Chik,
not the UMNO members
 Words may also refer to P thru external or extrinsic
facts.
 Must establish 3 factors for external facts:
 - must prove external facts that link defamatory
words with P
- words published to person who had actual
knowledge to the external evidence.
 Held: Although statement are not the actual words,
the meaning of what was reported in newspapers
and pleading was the same.
 CoA laid down important principles:

- words do refer to P - not crucial for words in original language to really

 For class or group defamation, P can prove words
refer to particular individuals in class or group.
 The larger the class, the smaller the chance of success
 Case: Eastwood v Holmes
corresponds with the translation, as long as it is
understood.
- P does not have to prove every word that is pleaded
but proof of words that are substantially the same as
those pleaded is sufficient.

 Held: if a man wrote that all lawyers were thieves, no  P must prove identity of person or persons to whom
particular lawyer could sue unless there was smtg to defamatory material has been published (not needed
point to the particular lawyer. if it’s published in newspaper or magazines)

 If words are repeated or copied, new cause of action

arises.
iii. Words must be published
 Cause of action arises where the publication takes
 Means the dissemination of defamatory words or place.
material to a 3rd party other than P

 Case: Dr Jenni Ibrahim v S Pakianathan

Omission (publish) = Defamation
 Held: sending copies of the letter that contained
defamatory words to other parties constitutes
publication.
 Case: Soh Chun Seng v CTOS-EMR
 Note: 3rdparty must read the letter that contained
 Held: Damages for omission to publish words does
defamatory words.
not lie within the scope of libel. Law of libel covers
 Butler’s case: Huth v Huth situations where words are published, not an
omission to publish.
 Held: No publication as it could not reasonably be
anticipated that letter addressed to wife was opened
and read by the butler. Publication was
Public Office
unforeseeable.

 Case: Chew Peng Cheng v Anthony Teo Tiao Gin

(a) Exceptions
 Def of defamation is not static and court is not bound
 No communication if it is made between spouses.
to give recognition to the requirement of certainty in
 Mere distributors like newspaper delivery men are law.
excluded from being the 3rd party.
 The higher the position held, more responsibility of
 Typist or printer who are just proofreading or that person, the closer he is to scrutiny allowable.
correcting does not count as 3rd party.
 To question of public official is constitutionally
guaranteed and not necessarily an attack on his
character.
(b) Relevant factors
 Just to explain his conduct
 No publication if 3rd party tak faham

 Actual words used (words alleged to be defamatory

must be proven)

 Case: Karpal Singh a/l Ram Singh v DP Vijandran