Defamation payouts must not exceed injury compensation, says ex-Federal Court judge
He described it as disproportionate for courts to award millions for reputational harm, while victims suffering life-altering injuries, such as paraplegia, receive only hundreds of thousands.
"People will lose confidence in the court if you award millions for loss of reputation rather than for the loss of limbs," he said at the Bar Council's forum on defamation law reform, Revisiting the Defamation Act 1957.
Additionally, the former top court judge said that exemplary damages, additional compensation awarded beyond actual loss, especially when the defendant has acted with vindictiveness or malice, should have no place in defamation law.
Meanwhile, Bar Council Civil Law and Law Reform Committee co-chair Datuk Seri M. Ramachelvam said politicians should not receive higher awards than ordinary individuals in defamation cases.
"They (politicians and celebrities) have far more resources to respond," he said.
Ramachelvam also pointed out that the legal costs of initiating a defamation suit were prohibitive for ordinary people.
He suggested creating an alternative mechanism to resolve defamation cases and improve access to justice.
"In Malaysia, it's usually the rich and influential who pursue defamation cases," he added.
The committee's deputy chairman Saraswathy Shirke Deo, said the committee was considering a proposal to raise the threshold for defamation claims to prevent trivial matters from reaching the courts.
"We want to make it a tad bit harder for celebrities and politicians. You want to ensure that when you file a defamation suit, it's a genuine one.
"So, we would want to raise the threshold," she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
2 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Let Anwar's application for referral of constitutional questions to Federal Court take its course — Hafiz Hassan
AUGUST 12 — In 'If Anwar's constitutional questions are preposterous, absurd and legal nonsense, let the court say it' I wrote that if the constitutional questions proposed to be referred by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for a ruling by the Federal Court were preposterous, absurd and legal nonsense, let the court having the ultimate authority say it. The constitutional questions were It was submitted by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim that he was being selectively exposed to litigation in a manner that violates the principle of equal protection, implying that the Prime Minister should receive distinct treatment under the law. — Bernama pic proposed in the civil action commenced by Yusoff Rawther against Anwar in the latter's personal capacity. The civil action was up for trial — the action having been filed at the High Court in July 2021, prior to Anwar's appointment as the Prime Minister in November 2022 with the trial having been fixed on June 6, 2025 — but Anwar, by an application on May 23, 2025, sought to: a) refer constitutional questions to the Federal Court (see below) – touching on whether a sitting Prime Minister enjoys certain immunities or protections from civil litigation relating to pre-office conduct — under O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) and/or Article 128(2) of the Federal Constitution and/or Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA); and b) stay the trial on June 16 pending the Federal Court's determination of those constitutional questions. At the hearing of the application, it was submitted by Anwar's legal team that the continuation of the civil action engages constitutional issues concerning the interpretation and effect of Articles 5, 8, 39, 40, and 43 of the Federal Constitution. It was further suggested that a sitting Prime Minister should be insulated from the burdens of civil litigation, and that the High Court ought to refer these issues for the determination of the Federal Court pursuant to Article 128(2) of the Federal Constitution. Eight questions were listed in the application for referral to the Federal Court. The grounds that were said to be critical constitutional issues were namely: a) Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution — right to life and personal liberty: It was contended by Anwar that being subjected to a civil trial while holding the office of Prime Minister infringes his liberty interests under Article 5(1), on the basis that it imposes undue burden and distraction from the discharge of executive functions; b) Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution — equality before the law: It was submitted by Anwar that he was being selectively exposed to litigation in a manner that violates the principle of equal protection, implying that the Prime Minister should receive distinct treatment under the law; c) Articles 39, 40, and 43 of the Federal Constitution — Executive authority, Yang di-Pertuan Agong to act on advice, and Cabinet: It was argued that the above provisions collectively vest the executive authority of the Federation in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on Cabinet advice, with the Prime Minister at its helm, and that subjecting the Prime Minister to civil litigation while in office undermines or disrupts this constitutional structure; d) doctrine of 'constructive harm': Anwar's counsel introduced this idea — though not anchored on any express constitutional provision, that permitting a Prime Minister to be sued while in office causes 'constructive harm' to the institution of the Executive, and this 'harm' triggered constitutional protection; and e) institutional proportionality: It was argued that the adjudication of politically sensitive private tort claims against the sitting Prime Minister, in the absence of a constitutional scrutiny threshold, violated the principle of institutional proportionality and offended the basic structure of the Federal Constitution by upsetting the functional balance between the Judiciary and the Executive. The application was made notwithstanding that Anwar was ready and willing to proceed with the trial. Anwar does not assert that the action impairs his ability to perform his constitutional functions. He does not also produce any evidence to that effect. It appears that Anwar does not raise immunity as a defence to Yusoff's claim — but I stand corrected on this. What is apparent, however, the application and the grounds are largely exploratory in nature – to test whether the Federal Constitution accords the Prime Minister any form of procedural immunity or protection from civil liability while in office. One may not agree with the proposed constitutional questions — some, even from the legal fraternity, have vilified Anwar and his legal team for the questions — but it was ingenious of Anwar's legal team to have proposed the questions — again, one may not agree with the word 'ingenious'. Be that as it may, High Court Judge Roz Mawar did not buy into Anwar's legal team's arguments, contentions and submissions. After assessing the application and each of the grounds at length, the learned judge said: 'Having considered the application in its entirety, this court is of the view that the constitutional questions framed by the defendant are not real, substantial, or necessary for the disposal of the present suit. The issues raised do not call for the interpretation of any ambiguity in our Federal Constitution, nor do they relate to the validity of any legislation, or the scope of legislative competence under Article 128(2) of our Federal Constitution. 'The principles [are] … clear: that not every question which touches on the Constitution qualifies for referral under Section 84 of the CJA. This court must be satisfied that the constitutional question is both genuine and material to the resolution of the case. The Federal Court is not a forum for speculative or defensive advisory opinions. 'This present application discloses no such question. The suit concerns a personal claim against the defendant for alleged acts occurring prior to his assumption of office. There is no suggestion that the defendant is unable to discharge his constitutional duties, and the defendant has indicated readiness to proceed with trial as scheduled on 16 June 2025. It is this court's considered conclusion that Section 84 of the CJA is not satisfied. This court therefore declines to refer the proposed questions to the Federal Court. 'The application … is hereby dismissed. Cost of RM20,000 is awarded to the plaintiff. Trial to commence on 16 June 2025 as scheduled.' (See Muhammed Yusoff Rawther v Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim [2025] 10 MLJ 689, 690) So, instead of vilifying Anwar's so-called claim of immunity, which may be misplaced – unless Anwar pleads as such in his defence – let's celebrate the learned High Court judge's independence. Her Ladyship decided against Anwar, who may be sued in his personal capacity, but nonetheless the country's prime minister. Anwar has appealed against the decision and has successfully obtained a stay of the trial pending the outcome of his appeal to the Court of Appeal. Let Anwar's application and its grounds be ventilated in the higher court. Let the application take its legal course. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Focus Malaysia
3 hours ago
- Focus Malaysia
UMNO man urges swift enforcement of Royal addendum in SRC case
THE Federal Court's confirmation of the existence of a Titah Adendum (Addendum Decree) linked to former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak has reignited debate over his prison sentence, with calls for its immediate enforcement. According to UMNO Tumpat information chief Che Muhammad Redzuan Jihad, a lawyer, the matter should no longer be brought to the High Court, as the highest court had already ruled on its existence. 'The Titah Adendum is an order from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, not a political document. Prolonged debate only wastes time and confuses the people,' he said, stressing that swift implementation would uphold the dignity of the Malay Rulers. UMNO deputy president Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan echoed the view, saying there was no need for further litigation after the Federal Court ruling. Nevertheless, lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla told a Malay-language online portal that Najib could begin serving his sentence under house arrest as early as November if the High Court affirms the decree's validity. He noted administrative matters would not hinder enforcement once the court confirms it. Najib is currently serving a 12-year prison sentence for corruption involving SRC International, partially reduced through a royal pardon. Meanwhile, SRC International Sdn Bhd and its subsidiary Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd have filed a RM42mil civil suit against Najib. They alleged the funds, intended to secure Malaysia's energy future and benefit pensioners, were diverted into Najib's personal accounts. The High Court trial, before Judge Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah, resumes on Sept 8. 'The facts are stark: the RM42mil of public money, funds meant to secure Malaysia's energy future and intended for the benefit of civil service pensioners, ended up in the personal bank accounts of our former prime minister, the defendants. 'The evidence tells a simple yet damning story: public power was abused and misused,' Kwan Will Sen, company lawyer, said. — Aug 16, 2025 Main photo credit: The Guardian
Sinar Daily
a day ago
- Sinar Daily
Najib could begin house imprisonment by November pending court decision
Lawyer Mohamed Hanif Khatri Abdulla said the correct term for Najib's potential new arrangement is "house imprisonment" rather than "house arrest", stressing that the two involved different legal processes. Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak - BERNAMA FILE PIX PUTRAJAYA – Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak could be allowed to serve his sentence from home as early as November, depending on the outcome of a High Court decision on the validity of a Royal Addendum, a supplementary royal decree concerning his imprisonment. Lawyer Mohamed Hanif Khatri Abdulla said the transition to house imprisonment can proceed even if the prosecution files an appeal, unless a stay of execution is granted by the court. 'When it comes to someone's liberty, it's rare for courts to grant a stay. 'If the appeal is successful, Najib can be returned to prison. But the time spent at home should still count and it cannot simply be disregarded due to an ongoing appeal,' he said. Lawyer Mohamed Hanif Khatri Abdulla Hanif noted that the judicial review application concerning the Royal Addendum was now in its second stage, following the Federal Court's decision on Wednesday to grant leave for the case to proceed. The substantive hearing will examine full arguments from both sides, focusing on whether the royal decree is constitutionally sound and legally enforceable. 'This stage will be affidavit-based. The case is expected to be up for mention at the High Court on Monday, to fix deadlines for affidavit submissions, hearing dates and written arguments,' Hanif said. He added that such cases would be typically resolved within one to three months, or in the best-case scenario, within a month once all required documents and submissions had been filed. He said the correct term for Najib's potential new arrangement is "house imprisonment" rather than "house arrest", stressing that the two involved different legal processes. 'This isn't house arrest. It's house imprisonment granted under a Royal pardon. Using the wrong term will only confuse the public,' he said. Najib began serving his prison sentence in August 2022. The sentence was later reduced to six years following a partial Royal pardon. Based on standard calculations, his sentence is due to end in 2028, though with statutory remission and other factors, he could be eligible for release by 2026. On the main legal question, Hanif said the issue revolved around whether a royal decree or pardon must be issued following the advice of the Pardons Board or the Attorney General. He emphasised that the case concerned constitutional and legal interpretations only, as the factual elements have already been established. Earlier this week, the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) failed in its bid to overturn the Federal Court's decision allowing Najib to initiate judicial review proceedings. The review seeks to compel the government and six others to respond to and confirm the existence and legitimacy of the Royal Addendum.
