O :
According to Lord Atkin in Sim V Stretch said that, ”statement (oral
, temporary or permanent) which injuries the reputation of another by
exposing him to hatred , contempt and ridicule or which tends to lower
him in the esteem of right thinking member of society” Defamation is
divided into Libel (written , permanent or visible form) and Slander
(oral and temporary ). Libel is actionable per se whereby action can be
taken without having to prove any damage. Slander on the other hand is
not actionable per se where damage must be proven before action can be
taken except imputation of a criminal offences punishable by
imprisonment , adultery to a women , imputation of certain contagious
disease and imputation calculated to disparage the plaintiff in any “
office , profession or trade”
I : Issues arising out of the fact are whether the words complained of were defamatory ,whether the words referred to the plaintiff, Nona Bedah , whether there is publication to the third party and whether Wan Jelite has any defense towards the case? Each element shall discuss in turn.
P : On the issue of whether the words complained of were defamatory , it was held in Hasnul Abdul Hadi V Bulat Muhamed (1978), ‘ the court held that by calling a person a liar , Abu Jahal , is defamatory. The words of Abu Jahal are actionable and thus the defendant was liable.’ In case of Luk Kai Lam V Sim Ai Leng (1978) , the court held that the words ‘prostitute’ called by defendant and statement that plaintiff had been sleeping with Sia in the nursing home for over a year before they got married is a defamatory.
A : On the fact in the cases , it can be seen that the words complained of must be defamatory as the defendant , Wan Jelita has stated in the Kampung Pisang’s bulletin that words of ‘conservative’ and usage of ‘black magic’ by Nona Bedah to retain her position is considered as defamatory words.
C : It is submitted that based on the ratio in the case of Hasnul Abdul Hadi V Bulat Muhamed and case of Luk Kai Lam V Sim Ai Leng , Wan Jelita had publish a defamatory words towards plaintiff through Kampung Pisang’s bulletin as plaintiff was a conservative leader and had been use black magic to retain her position as a president in Single Mother Association.
P : The second element of defamation is whether words complained of must refer to the plaintiff and it must clearly to plaintiff and not to other person ,real or imaginary. The state or purpose of defendant’s mind is not important. The defendant can held liable where his statement is true of one person but in fact the defamatory of another person of the same name or the same description. The court held that in Newstead V London Express Management ,a news item published had been a defamatory to another Camberwell man about a bigamy. The plaintiff’s contention that the words published could be understood to refer to him was upheld although there are two Camberwell man that resided also in same area.
A :On the fact in this case, the statement of Wan Jelita ‘we need no longer a leader who is conservative’ in the bulletin is referred to Nona Bedah because Nona Bedah had been as a president or leader for four years consecutively in Kampung Pisang.
C : It is submitted that based on case of Newstead V London Express Management , statement of Wan Jelita in the bulletin is understood by all villangers that statement is refers to Nona Bedah. This can damage the reputation of Nona Bedah as the president of SMA The defamation towards Nona Bedah is under Libel,so she can use the article in the bulletin as a prove to the courts.
P : The third element of defamation is whether it is publish to the third party. Publication means ‘making known of defamatory matter after it has been written to some person other than the person of whom it is written’. It is not a publication if it is communication between spouses about the third party. A statement not heard if it is made to a deaf, or a language that not understand or it is obviously referable to the plaintiff is not considered as having published. However, the communication by a third party to one spouse is a publication. It was held that in Theaker V Richardson, the defendant had placed the defamatory letter in the Theaker’s husband letterbox in Manila. The jury found that the defendant liable because it is reasonable that the letter would be opened and read by the plaintiff husband
A : On the fact of the case, Wan Jelita wrote an article in the Kampung Pisang ‘s bulletin stating that “ we no longer need a leader who is conservative and do not use black magic to retain in position. Wan Jelita is liable to defamation because she had published the article to public and it is reasonable that every villagers can read the post.
C : It is submitted that based on the ratio in case of Theaker V Richardson , Wan Jelita had published a defamatory statement through the Kampung Pisang bulletin which can acess by all members of Single Mother Association. In my point of view , Nona Bedah should prove that the post is really exist by printing it out or taking picture.
O : Defences are the method or the way for the defendant ,the people that made the defamatory to the plaintiff, whose had accused in the case and should prove if the defamation is true or not. Besides that , defences also used to protect defendant from legal action taken by plaintiff.
I : The defend arising in several method in the case of fact whether , the Wan Jelita that responsible as a defendant can justification the defamatory to the Nona Bedah , whether fair comment made by Wan Jelita for the Kampung Pisang , whether the defendant’s words is only a privilege about Nona Bedah , whether Wan Jelita can make apology to Nona Bedah and lastly whether Wan Jelita have to offer the amends to Nona Bedah. Under Section 10 , the apology made a defendant may plead the publication of opology was made without malice , the apology was published at the earliest opportunity and that compensation has been paid into court.
A : On the fact of this case , the plaintiff ,Nona Bedah is the president of SMA of Kampung Pisang being upset when the bulletin wrote a defamation about her, that ‘we need no longer a leader who is conservative. We need a new leader who do not need any black magic ‘.The words conservative and black magic show the defamatory because it is refers to Nona Bedah who is holding the position for four years back.
C : The best and safe way in this case,the defendant should make apology to Nona Bedah that stated under Section 10. In my opnion , Nona Bedah totally want Wan Jelita to clear up her name due to defamation made by defendant. The apology is the compensation towards Nona Bedah injuries.
MLAW245 A MEMBERS:
I : Issues arising out of the fact are whether the words complained of were defamatory ,whether the words referred to the plaintiff, Nona Bedah , whether there is publication to the third party and whether Wan Jelite has any defense towards the case? Each element shall discuss in turn.
P : On the issue of whether the words complained of were defamatory , it was held in Hasnul Abdul Hadi V Bulat Muhamed (1978), ‘ the court held that by calling a person a liar , Abu Jahal , is defamatory. The words of Abu Jahal are actionable and thus the defendant was liable.’ In case of Luk Kai Lam V Sim Ai Leng (1978) , the court held that the words ‘prostitute’ called by defendant and statement that plaintiff had been sleeping with Sia in the nursing home for over a year before they got married is a defamatory.
A : On the fact in the cases , it can be seen that the words complained of must be defamatory as the defendant , Wan Jelita has stated in the Kampung Pisang’s bulletin that words of ‘conservative’ and usage of ‘black magic’ by Nona Bedah to retain her position is considered as defamatory words.
C : It is submitted that based on the ratio in the case of Hasnul Abdul Hadi V Bulat Muhamed and case of Luk Kai Lam V Sim Ai Leng , Wan Jelita had publish a defamatory words towards plaintiff through Kampung Pisang’s bulletin as plaintiff was a conservative leader and had been use black magic to retain her position as a president in Single Mother Association.
P : The second element of defamation is whether words complained of must refer to the plaintiff and it must clearly to plaintiff and not to other person ,real or imaginary. The state or purpose of defendant’s mind is not important. The defendant can held liable where his statement is true of one person but in fact the defamatory of another person of the same name or the same description. The court held that in Newstead V London Express Management ,a news item published had been a defamatory to another Camberwell man about a bigamy. The plaintiff’s contention that the words published could be understood to refer to him was upheld although there are two Camberwell man that resided also in same area.
A :On the fact in this case, the statement of Wan Jelita ‘we need no longer a leader who is conservative’ in the bulletin is referred to Nona Bedah because Nona Bedah had been as a president or leader for four years consecutively in Kampung Pisang.
C : It is submitted that based on case of Newstead V London Express Management , statement of Wan Jelita in the bulletin is understood by all villangers that statement is refers to Nona Bedah. This can damage the reputation of Nona Bedah as the president of SMA The defamation towards Nona Bedah is under Libel,so she can use the article in the bulletin as a prove to the courts.
P : The third element of defamation is whether it is publish to the third party. Publication means ‘making known of defamatory matter after it has been written to some person other than the person of whom it is written’. It is not a publication if it is communication between spouses about the third party. A statement not heard if it is made to a deaf, or a language that not understand or it is obviously referable to the plaintiff is not considered as having published. However, the communication by a third party to one spouse is a publication. It was held that in Theaker V Richardson, the defendant had placed the defamatory letter in the Theaker’s husband letterbox in Manila. The jury found that the defendant liable because it is reasonable that the letter would be opened and read by the plaintiff husband
A : On the fact of the case, Wan Jelita wrote an article in the Kampung Pisang ‘s bulletin stating that “ we no longer need a leader who is conservative and do not use black magic to retain in position. Wan Jelita is liable to defamation because she had published the article to public and it is reasonable that every villagers can read the post.
C : It is submitted that based on the ratio in case of Theaker V Richardson , Wan Jelita had published a defamatory statement through the Kampung Pisang bulletin which can acess by all members of Single Mother Association. In my point of view , Nona Bedah should prove that the post is really exist by printing it out or taking picture.
O : Defences are the method or the way for the defendant ,the people that made the defamatory to the plaintiff, whose had accused in the case and should prove if the defamation is true or not. Besides that , defences also used to protect defendant from legal action taken by plaintiff.
I : The defend arising in several method in the case of fact whether , the Wan Jelita that responsible as a defendant can justification the defamatory to the Nona Bedah , whether fair comment made by Wan Jelita for the Kampung Pisang , whether the defendant’s words is only a privilege about Nona Bedah , whether Wan Jelita can make apology to Nona Bedah and lastly whether Wan Jelita have to offer the amends to Nona Bedah. Under Section 10 , the apology made a defendant may plead the publication of opology was made without malice , the apology was published at the earliest opportunity and that compensation has been paid into court.
A : On the fact of this case , the plaintiff ,Nona Bedah is the president of SMA of Kampung Pisang being upset when the bulletin wrote a defamation about her, that ‘we need no longer a leader who is conservative. We need a new leader who do not need any black magic ‘.The words conservative and black magic show the defamatory because it is refers to Nona Bedah who is holding the position for four years back.
C : The best and safe way in this case,the defendant should make apology to Nona Bedah that stated under Section 10. In my opnion , Nona Bedah totally want Wan Jelita to clear up her name due to defamation made by defendant. The apology is the compensation towards Nona Bedah injuries.
MLAW245 A MEMBERS:
NUR HANISSA BT ABDUL HALIM
NUR ALYA ATIQAH BT JAAFAR
NUR NAJIHAH BT ABU HASSAN
NURUL FATEHAH ASSYURAH BT SANUSI
NUR ATIQAH BT ITHNIN
NUR ALYA ATIQAH BT JAAFAR
NUR NAJIHAH BT ABU HASSAN
NURUL FATEHAH ASSYURAH BT SANUSI
NUR ATIQAH BT ITHNIN
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan