Normala Samsudin v

Keluarga Communication

Group 4Farahin - Jannah

- Nabihah

Facts• P is a famous television personality & prime time

newscaster with TV3.• D is the publisher of Mingguan Wanita (MW)• On the MW issue 26 Jan- 2 Feb, D published an article

mention a third person in P’s married life & payment of RM3m to her husband to release her ( by tebus talak).

• P sued D for defamatory.• D contended that P gave her consent to publish the

article & D had apology in the next magazine for publishing the article.

Issue(s)• Whether the article had brought

defamatory to the Plaintiff ???• Whether the Plaintiff authorized the

article to be publish ???

Judgement• The court award a sum of RM100,000 as general

damages for the libel, and RM100,000 as aggravated damages.

• The words were indeed expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule or contempt in the mind of a reasonable man or to lower her in the esteem of right thinking members of the public generally.

• The defendant’s half hearted attempt at an apology was an other factor to consider in awarding aggravated damages.

Type of defamation• Libel - Defamation in a permanent form and usually visible

to the eye. - Actionable per se- The law presumes that when a person’s reputation is

assailed, same damages must result.- The defendant published an article which mentions a

third person in her marriage and the payment of RM3 million to her husband to release her from her marriage bond

Defences of defamation

• Apology - The criteria of an effective apology. - A clear print of ‘MOHON MAAF’ (we apologise). - Together with an explanation that earlier article

was withdrawn.• Consent/ Volenti non fit injuria - If a person (plaintiff) clearly gives his consent for

any words/statements to be published, then the defendant may raise this defence.

FYI…• In 3 Jan 2006, the defendant appeals against

the award of aggravated damages.• The CoA held that, the learned trial judge had

overlooked the article. The article was actually a complimentary of the plaintiff

• Regarding the half-hearted apology, the CoA considered that the apology had met the criteria of a full and frank withdrawal of the charges regarding the plaintiff.

THANK YOU FOR

YOUR ATTENTION !!!