Anis Arianti Binti Ariffin v Nur Khalida Binti Khalid (KA-12B-9-04/2025)

This is an action for defamation. The Plaintiff commenced proceedings against the Defendant, alleging that she had been defamed through a Facebook posting. She contends that the posting referred to her and caused offence. According to her, the publication has adversely affected her business reputation, and she now seeks damages.

The Defendant does not dispute the publication. However, she denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to maintain an action for defamation or that her reputation has been lowered. She asserts that the statements made are true. In substance, this constitutes a plea of justification, which in defamation law is a defence grounded on the truth of the publication.

The matter was heard before the learned Sessions Judge, who allowed the Plaintiff’s claim. Dissatisfied with the findings, the Defendant lodged an appeal. The Plaintiff likewise, discontented with the award of damages, considered the sum inadequate and filed a cross-appeal.

The appeal and cross-appeal came before me. Upon hearing the parties, I dismissed both, finding no appealable error in the decision of the learned Sessions Judge. There were, accordingly, no grounds for appellate intervention. The Defendant, dissatisfied with my decision thereafter, filed a notice of appeal dated 02.04.2026.

The following constitute the grounds of my decision in dismissing both appeals.

In these grounds the parties will be referred to as they were in the court below.

The crux of the Plaintiff’s claim is the publication of a posting by the Defendant. On or about 19.11.2018 at 12:12 a.m., the Defendant, through a Facebook account under the name and/or style “Anis Arianti Ariffin,” published a post in both Malay and English of the following: - I was at Tesco Mergong Alor Setar Just now, never been there for so long.... but Today Is my Eldest Daughter 21st birthday and would like to make a surprise party for her..... Ive asked few friends... where to get a quick party stuff.... so they told me at tesco mergong has one ballon shop and sells party stuff..... so ive ordered some balloons and while waiting..... i went up to go to Mr DIY on the first floor just to browse if i can buy any add ons for that party...... So i went up and saw this Goldsmith shop belongs to Malay offering a gold price as low as 151/gram! So im kind of WOW! That is such a good bargain and lets go_ and see what they have...... Knowing who have a very strong goldsmith background...... If the price reasonable....i want to buy ... and im looking for not really specific but look alike pun tak apa this one design and they have it so im interested...... I told my other half...... If its good deal like what insaw.... i nak beli.... and he said ok! So now jadi cerita .... Mr DIY shop dah ntah kemana...... The shop was full with malay people... so im glad to see that melayu support melayu....... this one sales girl... pleased me and ask me to sit however there is no chair sebab mmg org ramai.... and i specific ask her to calculate to me one bracelet ... mmg mencari that similar design... and kalau emas harga rm151/gram mmg sgt murah... tapi saya ada trigger ada benda yg tak kena dengan kedai ni.... tapi saya rasa selamat nak beli sebab saya tahu calculation and selok belok bisnes emas ni sebab saya dibesarkan dalam keluarga bisnes kedai emas...... berat rantai tangan Love gantung is 21gm, so kalau harga yg patht keluar dari sales person should be not more than rm4000 pada saya kalau dia nak buka harga..... tapi saya diberitahu... harga RM4200++, dari situ... saya tanya berapa harga emas... tukis kat sini Rm151, dia ckp Rm151 tu utk ahli... kalau bukan ahli Rm154, ok fine.... saya tanya.... mcm mana nak jadi ahli.... kak bayar rm30 kak dah jadi ahli... so ok! fine... if the bracelet i want to buy is 21gm.... rm30 bayar pun still murah sebab its will reflect my gold price cuma rm1.40/gm rather than I pay rm3 per gram more....betul tak? so kalau 21gm x rm154 = RM3234 harga emas tak termasuk upah.... and she charge me upah RM780, spontanious saya ckp... upah tu tak masuk akal _, so saya minta dia revised harga kali kedua... dan di tag rantai tangan tu.... ada perkataan *WS* which dalam term kedai emas.... ianya adalah workmanship....jadi saya ckp pada salesperson tu.... upah kat tag ni cuma Rm380, kenapa amik tinggi sangat? Then dia dah tak terucap dan kawan atau siapa yg sebelah SA yg layan saya tu.... masuk campur dalam conversation saya.... dan dari situ.... keadaan dah agak mcm ermmmmm...... The next person yg involve sebagai supervisor/owner maybe.... dia kata... “undang undang mana yg ckp WS tu tanda harga upah dan kalau saya nak letak harga upah dan nak jual harga sejuta pun barang tu , itu hal saya” i was ???@@@????!!!! What is this?! Why are you raising your voice and feeling not satisfied? Is it because ada client kat tepi keliling kelalang u takut saya influence ke...? sorry... im just a walk in customer attracted with ur displayed offer price so cheap and if its genuine... definitely i will buy coz its a good bargain... its cheaper than supplier price as i know... and if i calculate.... it turn up to a figure yg pada sama masih lagi reasonable dan murah... saya tetap akan beli sebab im loved to buy gold..... Keadaan dah jadi agak tegang.... saya ckp “sombongnya awak” , she replied me...but still im interested sebab i dont care perangai ko.... kalau murah mmg aku beli... so i am not giving up yet... i spoke the the original girl who served me and ask her... if u can give me more discount.... walaupun pada waktu tu... saya sebenarnya tak tahu apa yg saya tgh buat.... still tak berputus asa rasa nak beli.. maybe sebab saya belum sediakan hadiah harijadi yg ke21 utk anak dara saya hari ni.....unfortunately...... not the girl yg serve saya tu jawab, the supervisor/boss tu jawab....”Kalau takat nak survey, tak payah tanya harga lah!” OMG!!!!!!!!!! gile ke dia ni? Salahka kalau saya tanya price? is it sebab benda tu kat dalam showcase ko... aku tgk kat luar je bermakna aku nak survey....... HELLO!!!!! In whatever situation, u cannot be rude to ur customer tau.... cemana pun customer u patut dilayan equally... and be treated well.... regardless dia beli ke tak....mentang mentang aku pakai tshirt bodoh je n slipper, dan mmg nampak tak bertujuan nak beli..... ko ingat aku tak blh beli ke? Ya allah dik...... u really challenge me...... And i have to raised my voice because u are looking down towards me.... Well... u jual barang riban riban k...... i know ur business.... tapi nampak gayanya u memaksa saya untuk tulis write up yg panjang supaya tak semua Melayu blh kena tipu dengan ko! Ko marah aku, ko melenting sebab aku tahu pasal ko punya strategy menipu org melayu???? Ko dah tipu melayu lain.. tu ko punya hal lah... tapi kalau dengan aku.... ko tak yah la menipu lebih..... yet ko seolah nak halau aku keluar sebab ko takut ke aku bgtahu kat custor ko yg cara ko kira tu mmg menipu?? eh.... tu ko punya hal la... since ko rasa mcm ko dah terjerat...... ko nak bingit kenapa.... aku cuma tanya.... blh tak kurang lagi???? itu je pun.... tak ada pulak aku ckp... ko menipu ke apa.....rantai tangan gantung tu upahnya dalam 120 shj... dan ko caj aku 700, so pada aku... kalau ko kira upah 180 pun.. dengan harga emas tak masuk akal ko yg 151 tu, masih la masuk akal aku nak beli.... tapi kalau harga emas ko 151, dan upah ko 700 tak nak bg kurang dah.... mmg pada aku ko menipu ramai melayu and since ko snobbish sgt dengan aku... aku nak viralkan bahawa kedai ko ni menipu org melayu display harga emas murah... tapi amik upah tinggi..… Well… kat sini..saya urge semua melayu….amik tahu formula kira nak beli barang emas ni yer….formulanya adalah Berat barang x Harga emas yang ditawarkan + Harga Upah = Harga Barang Tips: 1- Selalu harga emas mmg tetap…tapi variable nya ada harga upah… 2- Bisnes emas ni tak untung banyak pada harga emas tapi keuntungan boleh diadjust pada kadar upah 3- Average harga upah setiap barang kemas adalah rm5-rm15 per gram bergantung pada design Cth : Kalau Oraitalia Habib Jewel, Harga average upah adalah 20-30 per gram in average jadi kalau habib bagi diskaun rm10, basically total harga barang kalau u all devide by weight u should get in average about RM195- 210 per gram consider OK And untuk local design, average upah adalah rm5-12 shj per gram…jadi harga ditawarkan bila uall devide dengan weight tu perbezaan nya adalah in between average tu…consider kedai itu reasonable… So saya kat sini… nak kongsi ngan uolls…yg berada sekitar kedah perlis…jgn tertipu dengan harga display yg ditawarkan oleh kedai AYTI JEWELS ni adalah tricky… make sure u all tahu berapa harga upah dia_ambil dan bahagikanlah harga upah tu dengan berat barang…kalua upahnya adalah average saya ckp kat atas… u all proceed beli.. tapi kalau lepas u all bahagi mcm kes saya… upah dah jadi rm40/gram…jadi tawaran emas rm151 tu tidaklah murah…baiklah pergi ke kedai yang berjenama yg kononnya u all rase mahal tu.. dan nak save duit tapi akhirnya u all dah bayar harga yg tak sepatutnya akibat dari teruja dengan harga Pameran yg ditawarkan… PENGIRAAN PEMBELIAN EMAS KATEGORI KEDAI SELAMAT YG LAYAK DIKIRA HARGA PATUT-Menjual emas tiada upah _ Kedai yg menawarkan harga semasa tapi tidak mengenakan upah adalah dikira kedai harga patut Cth: harga semasa skrg …Rm183/gm Berat seutas rantai tangan 10gm x Rm183 = Rm1830 ‘anda blh beli, tak murah sgt tapi murah sebab tiada upah… harga patut dalam keadaan ekonomi sekarang.. -Menjual emas diskaun rm10/gm dan mengenakan upah purata 10-12 ringgit per/gm _ CTH: Harga emas Ditawarkan Rm173, harga semasa RM183 Kedai A-berat seutas rantai tangan 10gm x Rm173 = 1830 _ Kedai B - 10gm x rm173 + upah rm50 = Rm1780 _ murah (average price per gram Rm178 which is < Rm 183 (harga semasa) so kedai mcm ni di kladsifikasikan sebagai kedai jual murah - Menjual emas Rm151, harga semasa rm183 Kedai A - berat 10gm x Rm151 + 700 upah = Rm2210 … (AYTI JEWEL Tesco Mergong Alor Setar) Kedai B - berat 10gm x Rm151 + 200 upah sepatutnya dlm lingkungan rm193 per gm maxima… jadi kedai B menawarkan harga purata per gram rm171/gm anda blh klasifikasikan kedai tersebut murah… manakala AYTI Jewel menawarkan harga purata Rm221/gm itu sgt Melampau! Well enough said…khas buat pemilik kedai..anda sgt Rude Dengan customer…saya tak pegang pun barang anda dan saya melihat dari luar shj… dan mmg saya tahu WS di label stand for workmanship(upah) tak perlu nak cakap sombong “kalau saya nak jual brg saya harga sejuta pun saya tak salah…” kita ada Kpdnkk… saya tak suka melayu tipu melayu utk mengaut keuntungan lebih… status saya hari ni sekadar nak bg knowledge kepada semua peminat brg kemas..cara macam mana u nak justify setiap kedai emas itu murah atau mahal…at least ada guideline mcm mana nak beli dan rasa yakin beli emas di mana mana kedai pun… Carilah kedai yg layan anda dengan baik dan hargailah duit anda dan peliharalah hak anda sebagai pengguna“.

Notably, the publication also contained a photograph depicting the signboard of “AYTI JEWELS.” This fact is significant and will be addressed in the later part of these grounds.

On the same date, 19.11.2018, the Plaintiff responded to the Defendant’s publication through a Facebook account under the name “AYTI Jewel Lotus’s Mergong.”

It is a reply and response on the Defendant’s Facebook posting and it reads: “Assalamualaikum dan Selamat Pagi. Salam Maulidur Rasul. Nampaknya kami kena ulas jugak mengenai hal yang sedang hangat viral di laman facebook. Tapi saya nak beri sedikit FAKTA kepada semua.

Beliau yang viral menyatakan harga bukan ahli kami Rm 154 dan harga ahli Rm 151. Seperti gambar yang diberi di bawah, Harga bukan ahli adalah RM154.70/gram belum termasuk upah. Dan harga untuk ahli RM 151.70/gram juga belum termasuk upah.

Beliau menyatakan “this one sales girl... pleased me and ask me to sit however there is no chair sebab mmg org ramai”. Sila refer gambar yang diberi di bawah. Memang ada kerusi untuk beliau. Tapi beliau yang tak nak duduk untuk berbincang harga walaupun sudah diajak untuk berbincang mengenai harga.

Beliau menyatakan “berat rantai tangan Love gantung is 21gm”. Namun berat sebenar yang beliau lihat pada masa itu adalah 21.09gram. Beza RM13.92 yer. (0.09g x RM154.7)

Beliau menyatakan “harga yg patht keluar dari sales person should be not more than rm4000 pada saya kalau dia nak buka harga..... tapi saya diberitahu... harga RM4200++”. Tiada harga patut untuk setiap barang kemas. Harga emas bukan harga kawalan yer. Terpulang pada kedai untuk letakkan harga. Masing-masing ada strategi masing-masing.

Beliau juga menyatakan bahawa staff kami berkata kepada beliau “undang undang mana yg ckp WS tu tanda harga upah dan kalau saya nak letak harga upah dan nak jual harga sejuta pun barang tu , itu hal saya”. Mungkin beliau salah dengar atau apa saya tidak pasti. Yes memang staff cakap “undang-undang mana yang menyatakan WS tu adalah harga upah? Dan kalau upah nak letak berapa pun tak de masalah. Sebab emas bukan harga kawalan. Nak letak sejuta pun tak de masalah, kalau customer sanggup beli. Tapi itu hal saya tu tak de pun. Saja ditambah mungkin?

17.Why are you raising your voice and feeling not satisfied? Dengan semua orang pun memang terpaksa tinggikan suara sebab cermin kedai kami sangat tebal dan ramai customer lain complain tak dengar. Kalau cakap ayu-ayu/perlahan-perlahan, mesti customer akan, haa? Haa? Apa? Tak dengar.. haa gitu.. Tapi beliau tinggikan suara beliau di luar kenapa agaknya?

17.Is it because ada client kat tepi keliling kelalang u takut saya influence ke...? Yes memang beliau cuba influence orang sebelah. Tapi orang sebelah kanan beliau cakap, tak pe saya dah beli. Dan orang sebelah kiri beliau hanya tersenyum. Serta orang sebelah-sebelah lain pun beli, Alhamdulillah. Walaupun diorang terpinga-pinga dan lari jauh sikit maybe sebab risau dengan perempuan mengandung yang tinggikan suara.

Ayat beliau lagi “sombongnya awak” Beliau siap suruh staff diam dan tak bagi staff bercakap. Macam mana nak bincang harga kalau beliau arahkan staff diam? Dan staff tu siap minta maaf kalau beliau tak puas hati. Sebab staff tak mahu 6aka da-panjang dan beranggapan kemungkinan beliau mood tak berapa ok since beliau tengah mengandung. Beliau cakap kembali “I customer, customer always win”. Staff pun balas semula, yer puan win. Namun beliau masih tidak berpuas hati dengan permohonan maaf serta pernyataan staff mengenai beliau menang.

Ayat beliau lagi, the supervisor/boss tu jawab....”Kalau takat nak survey, tak payah tanya harga lah!” 7aka da pun ayat begitu keluar. Staff sudah memberi harga kurang iaitu RM3,750 (RM 177.809/gram termasuk upah). Namun beliau masih asyik menyebut “UNREASONABLE WORKMANSHIP”. Dan staff menyatakan “kalau betul nak beli boleh lagi bagi kurang” dengan berharap beliau akan duduk untuk berbincang harga. Namun beliau tak duduk. Kemudian staff berkata, “kalau betul nak beli boleh lagi bagi kurang, kalau nak survey takat tu ja harga boleh bagi”. Kemudian beliau lagi mengamuk.

Ayat beliau lagi, mentang mentang aku pakai tshirt bodoh je n slipper, dan mmg nampak tak bertujuan nak beli..... ko ingat aku tak blh beli ke? Tidak ada satu penyataan pun menyatakan beliau tak boleh beli mahupun tak mampu beli. Beliau juga dengan tinggi suara menyatakan bahawa beliau nak beli 2-3 barang.

And I have to raised my voice because u are looking down towards me. Yes beliau tinggikan suara. Namun tiada siapa yang memandang rendah pada beliau. Itu anggapan negative dari beliau sahaja.

Kami tidak menipu pelanggan kami. Berat, harga per gram, harga upah serta total semua diberitahu sebelum akad jual beli dijalankan.

Tiada siapa yang buat bingit. Beliau yang masuk kedai dan asyik meninggikan suara “UNREASONABLE WORKMANSHIP” berulang-ulang. Sampai customer sebelah-sebelah takut.

Tak nak bagi kurang? Yang staff bagi RM 3,750 (RM 177.809/gram) tu apa? Bukan kurang ya? Dan masih staff nak bagi kurang harga tu. Pun masih bukan kurang?

Beliau juga menyatakan harga purata kami RM 221/gram. Sedangkan beliau hanya tanya satu barang dan harga barang itu setelah di kurang menjadi RM 177.809/gram. Macam mana beliau kira purata itu? Dengan hanya satu barang?

Beliau juga menyatakan murah (average price per gram Rm178 which is < Rm183 (harga semasa) so kedai mcm ni di klasifikasikan sebagai kedai yg jual murah. Tapi kami memberi harga RM177.809/gram malah masih boleh kurang tapi beliau cop kan kedai kami mahal? Rm 178/gram murah dari RM

177.809/gram?

Harga yang di berikan mulanya adalah harga buka oleh staff yang baru bekerja beberapa hari. Biasanya kalau pelanggan yang ingin membeli memang akan duduk dan berbincang mengenai upah. Dan tiada tanda WORKMANSHIP atau tiada harga upah dipaparkan di barang. Di barang hanya Mutu contoh: 916 serta berat cth 21.09gram sahaja untuk kegunaan pelanggan. Kod lain adalah kod kilang, kod admin kod barang dan kod staff. Lain-lain kedai, lain-lain caranya taggingnya. Staff kami telah memohon maaf serta memberi harga diskaun, namun beliau masih tidak puas hati dan memviralkan kedai kami serta menyatakan infoinfo yang tidak tepat tentang kedai kami. Kami juga tidak tahu apa yang beliau mahukan sebenarnya. Mungkin beliau mahu disaman. In Sha ALLAH akan diusahakan. Lepas ni kami serahkan pada peguam sahaja. Kami rasa itu sahaja yang kami nak nyatakan di sini. Yang Baik Datangnya Dari Allah SWT Dan Yang Buruk Datangnya Dari Kami Sendiri Manusia Biasa. Kepada yang tolong share tu, ingatlah, apa yang anda share tu, kalau salah, maksudnya anda memfitnah kedai kami. Dosa memfitnah lagi besar dari membunuh. Tiada dosa meletakkan harga emas yang tinggi selagi pelanggan dan penjual setuju. Kalau tak setuju kita bincang sampai jadi. Kalau masih tak setuju, anda boleh membuat pilihan yang lain tanpa dipaksa. Tiada paksaan dalam pembelian. Sempena kena viral fitnah ni, rasa-rasa macam nak buat jualan RM 480 17x/gram TERMASUK UPAH lepas promosi Maulidur Rasul hari ini. Agak-agak ada yang nak beli tak? Kalau ada yang nak beli, belanja satuuuu, nanti kita fikir x tu angka berapa. Terima kasih dan ASSALAMUALAIKUM WBT. — at Kedai Emas AYTI Jewels”

The learned Sessions Judge (SCJ) held for the Plaintiff. Among others the SCJ held as follows:

(i) The Defendant admitted to having published the said statements against the Plaintiff through a Facebook account under the name and/or style “Anis Arianti Ariffin”.

(v) The defamatory statements were published and communicated to third parties.

The Defendant set out 14 grounds of appeal in her Memorandum of Appeal, and a further 7 in the Supplementary Memorandum. No injustice is occasioned to the Defendant by my summarising the grounds under the following categories:

(i) Locus Standi: The learned SCJ erred in fact and law in holding that the Plaintiff had locus standi to commence the action when:

(a) The alleged statements did not specifically refer to the Plaintiff but to “Ayti Jewels,” a gold shop.

(b) No documentary evidence was produced to establish ownership or connection between the Plaintiff and Ayti Jewels.

(c) Reliance was placed solely on oral testimony without supporting proof such as licenses or business records.

(a) The Plaintiff failed to plead with specificity which statements were defamatory, contrary to Order 78(3) of the Rules of Court 2012.

(b) Certain statements pleaded were irrelevant to defamation, as admitted by the Plaintiff during trial.

(c) The disputed “0.9 gsm difference” was never specifically pleaded.

(d) The Plaintiff admitted lacking knowledge to determine whether the statements were true or false.

(a) The full context of the statements.

(b) The authorities and precedents cited by the Defendant.

(c) The Plaintiff’s own admissions during trial.

(a) The statement regarding workmanship charges not exceeding RM4,000 was true and admitted by the Plaintiff and their witness.

(b) The Plaintiff displayed prices inconsistent with actual prices, an undisputed fact.

(c) The Defendant provided a calculation method based on displayed gold and chain prices.

(d) The Plaintiff displayed gold prices without workmanship charges, contrary to Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1999.

(e) The statements were made in the public interest, without malice.

(v) Damages: The learned SCJ erred in awarding global damages of RM50,000 when:

(a) The Plaintiff failed to prove reputational harm or actual loss through documentary evidence.

(b) No particulars of business losses were pleaded or proven.

(c) The award was made contrary to the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings, as affirmed in RHB Bank Bhd v Kwan Chew Holdings Sdn Bhd [2010] 2 MLJ 188.

In essence, the appeal challenges the trial judge’s findings: that the statements referred to the Plaintiff, that they were defamatory, the rejection of the defences of justification and fair comment, and the award of RM50,000 in damages. At its core, the Defendant contends that the learned SCJ failed to consider the pleadings, context, admissions, statutory provisions, and case law, thereby resulting in an erroneous decision to allow the Plaintiff’s claim. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Principle of Appeal

It is to be noted that Order 55 of the Rules of Court 2012 provides that an appeal from the lower court to the High Court shall be by way of re-hearing. Thus in Golden Quantum Acres Sdn Bhd v. SSU Management Services Sdn Bhd [2014] 10 CLJ 320, Nallini J (as she then was) relying on the 2013 edition of the Malaysian Civil Procedure stated that the “court may consider the case afresh without reference to the reasons and written grounds of the lower court judge. It is considered as if the case comes before this court for the first time”. Whilst this may seem to convey the impression that the function of the court on appeal from the lower court is to hear the case afresh, such is not the case. The principles to me that on an appeal is that an appellate court will not interfere unless that the decision appealed from is “plainly wrong”.

In UEM Group Bhd v. Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor [2010] 9 CLJ 785 it was held as follows: [26]... It is well settled law that an appellate court will not generally speaking, intervene with the decision of a trial court unless the trial court is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its decision. A plainly wrong decision happens when the trial court is guilty of no or insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence.

In Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng v Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 2 CLJ 19 the Court of Appeal stated as follows: ‘Very recently, this Court in Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd v. Steven Phoa Cheng Loon & Ors [2003] 1 CLJ 585 CA, reviewed some of the leading authorities on appellate intervention and identified the general rule of appellate non-interference. We also considered some of the categories in which appellate interference is warranted. We find it unnecessary to repeat what we there said. Suffice to say that we re-affirm the proposition that an appellate court will not, generally speaking, intervene unless the trial court is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its decision. But appellate interference will take place in cases where there has been no or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence. It is, we think appropriate that we say what judicial appreciation of evidence involves. (emphasis added)

Accordingly, in determining whether the trial judge has undertaken a proper evaluation, this Court bears the responsibility of scrutinising the evidence adduced, whether through the oral testimony of witnesses, documentary exhibits, or the reasons set out in the judgment of the learned SCJ so as to ascertain whether there exists any manifest error in the factual findings. Locus Standi

The Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff lacked locus standi or legal standing. In my view, this is not an entirely accurate characterisation. More precisely, the submission is that the Plaintiff was not referred to by her personal name, as the statements alleged to be defamatory were directed at “Ayti Jewels,” a gold shop. In effect, the Defendant is challenging one of the essential elements of a defamation claim that the impugned statement must refer to the Plaintiff.

Now, Ayti Jewels, which is referred to in the statements, however, is not a legal entity capable of being defamed, much less to institute proceeding such as this. On this basis, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that she may maintain an action on behalf of Ayti Jewels.

I find this submission to be without merit. It is well settled that, for the element requiring the words to refer to the Plaintiff, the statements must be examined in their entirety to determine whether a reasonable person would construe and understand them as referring to the Plaintiff. In the case of The Institute of Commercial Management United Kingdom v. The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd [1993] 2 CLJ 365 (HC), Lim Beng Choon J endorsed the test formulated in David Syme v. Canavan [1918] 25 CLR 238 as follows: - The test of whether words that do not specifically name the plaintiff refer to him or not is this: Are they such as reasonably in the circumstances would lead persons acquainted with the plaintiff to believe that he was the person referred to? That does not assume that those persons who read the words know, all the circumstances or all the relevant facts. But although the plaintiff is not named in words, he may, nevertheless, be described so as to be recognised; and whether the description takes the form of a word-picture of an individual or the form of a reference to a class of persons of which he is or believed to be a member or any other form, if in the circumstances the description is such that a person hearing or reading the alleged words would reasonably believe that the plaintiff was referred to, that is sufficient reference to him. (emphasis added)

In Le Fanu v. Malcolmson [1848] 1 HL Cas 637 (cited by Ravinthan Paramaguru JC (as he then was) in Chong Siew Chiang v. Ng Kim Ho & Anor [2011] 6 CLJ 62), Lord Campbell said as follows: .... whether a man is called by one name, or whether he is called by another, or whether he is described by a pretended description of a class to which he is known to belong, if those who look on, know well who is aimed at, the very same injury is inflicted, the very same thing is in fact done as would be done if his name and Christian name were ten times repeated.

Le Fanu to my mind is an authority for the proposition that a person carrying the name of a business could maintain a claim for defamation so long as there is a reference to the business. See also Carter Ruck on Libel & Privacy, 6th Edition pages 157-158.

On that basis, I agree with the learned SCJ that the evidence clearly establishes the Plaintiff as the proprietor of a gold business at F5, First Floor, Tesco Mergong, No. 1, Lebuhraya Sultanah Bahiyah, 05150 Alor Setar, Kedah. This is confirmed by the Certificate of Renewal of Registration under the Registration of Businesses Act 1959 and supported by a Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM) search. As PW1, the Plaintiff testified that she owns the business under the name Insyirah Gold Enterprise, trading as “Ayti Jewels,” and produced business documents bearing the inscription “INSYIRAH GOLD ENTERPRISE (AYTI JEWELS)” together with the business address.

In addition, the Defendant’s own defence implicitly acknowledged the Plaintiff’s proprietorship of Ayti Jewels by referring to her Facebook post dated 19 November 2018 under the account “AYTI Jewels Lotus’s Mergong.”

On the totality of PW1’s testimony and the documentary evidence, it is clear that “Ayti Jewels” is the Plaintiff’s business brand. The Defendant’s Facebook publications, including photographs of the Plaintiff’s shop premises, plainly referred to the Plaintiff as the proprietor of the said business at Tesco Mergong. Pleadings point

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim merely referred to the entirety of the Defendant’s Facebook postings without identifying the specific portions alleged to be defamatory.

The Defendant further submits that the Plaintiff failed to comply with Order 78 rule 3(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 which reads as follows: - “Where in an action for libel or slander the plaintiff alleges that the words or matters complained of were used in a defamatory sense other than their ordinary meaning, he must give particulars of the facts and matters on which he relies in respect of such sense.”

This provision has received judicial scrutiny in a number of cases including Lim Kit Siang v Datuk Dr Ling Liong Sik [1997] 5 MLJ 523, HC; Henry Ong Keng Sem v Patrick Ong King Kok [2008] 7 MLJ 569, HC; Credit Guarantee Corp Malaysia Bhd v SSN Medical Products Sdn Bhd [2017] 6 CLJ 129; CA; Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) v Hue Shieh Lee [2019] 3 MLJ 720, FC; Dato’ Seri Tiong King Sing v Datuk Justine Jinggut [2003] 6 MLJ 433, HC; Melawangi Sdn Bhd v Tiow Weng Theong [2020] MLJU 257, FC and Credit Guarantee Corp Malaysia Bhd v SSN Medical Products Sdn Bhd [2017] 6 CLJ 129; [2016] 1 LNS 1502, CA.

Upon close examination of the pleadings I agree with conclusions of the learned SCJ that the pleadings, especially the Statement of Claim has complied with the requirement of Order 78 r 3 (1) of the ROC. It is trite law that whether a statement is defamatory is to be determined from the perspective of an ordinary reader, construing the statement reasonably and not by technical interpretation or selective reading by the maker of the statement.

A statement is deemed defamatory where, upon a fair and reasonable reading as a whole, it conveys a meaning that exposes the Plaintiff to ridicule, lowers her in the estimation of others, or subjects her to contempt or hatred. Moreover, an allegation may constitute defamation regardless of whether it is believed by those to whom it is published.

In this regard, the Federal Court in Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd v Hue Shieh Lee [2019] 2 MLRA 345 interpreted the meaning of “defamatory imputation” in defamation cases as follows: “[32] What is “defamatory imputation”? There is no precise test to be applied to determine whether or not any given words are defamatory. His Lordship Mohamed Azmi J (as he then was) in the case of Syed Husin Ali v Syarikat Percetakan Utusan Melayu Berhad & Anor [1973] 2 MLJ 56 at p. 58, quoting Gatley on Libel and Slander, 6th edn. P. 4, stated the following: “There is no wholly satisfactory definition of a defamatory imputation. Any imputation which may tend “to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally’, ‘to cut him off from society’ or ‘to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule’, is defamatory of him. An imputation may be defamatory whether or not it is believed by those to whom it is published.”

Accordingly, when read as a whole, the statement pleaded conveys a defamatory imputation against the Plaintiff. Defamatory Nature of the Statements

The Defendant’s statements must be read in their entirety and in context. On a fair reading of the postings, the imputations clearly suggest dishonesty in the Plaintiff’s business.

In the case of Seema Elizabeth Isoy v. Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong [2024] 5 MLRA 68, Nordin Hassan FCJ states that: “[31] The test in determining whether the words are defamatory is also well-settled in that, those words in their natural and ordinary meaning, tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of a reasonable man in society. The words impute the plaintiff’s dishonourable conduct or lack of integrity and expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. It tends to excite against the plaintiff the adverse opinion of others. (see Syed Husin Ali v Sharikat Penchetakan Utusan Melayu Berhad & Anor [1973] 2 MLJ 56, Chok Foo Choo v The China Press Berhad [1999] 1 CLJ 461, Tun Datuk Patinggi Haji Abdul Rahman Ya’kub v Bre Sdn Bhd & Ors [1996] 1 MLJ 393, JB Jeyaretnam v Goh Chok Tong [1984] 1 LNS 139) [32] It is pertinent to reiterate here that the tendency of the impugned words may also amount to a defamatory nature even if the words did not lower the plaintiff in the estimation of society. (see Tun Datuk Patinggi (supra); JB Jayaretnam (supra); and Syed Husin Ali (supra)) [33] Further, the ordinary and natural meaning of the words must be considered in the context of the whole text or message, in its entirety and not in isolation. In determining the ordinary and natural meaning of the words, the Court may consider their literal meaning or their implied, inferred innuendo, or indirect meaning. In addition, the ordinary and natural meaning of the words also include implications or inferences that can be drawn from the words. Lord Morris in Jones v Skelton [1963] 3 All ER 952 quoted with approval in Chok Foo Choo (supra), said this: “The ordinary and natural meaning of the words may be either the literal meaning or it may be an implied or inferred or an indirect meaning: any meaning that does not require the support of extrinsic facts passing beyond general knowledge but is a meaning which is capable of being detected in the language used can be a part of the ordinary and natural meaning of words (see Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1963] 2 All ER 151). The ordinary and natural meaning may therefore include any implication or inference which a reasonable reader, guided not by any special but only by general knowledge and not fettered by any strict legal rules of construction, would draw from the words. The test of reasonableness guides and directs the court in its function of deciding whether it is open to a jury in a particular case to hold that reasonable persons would understand the cords complained of in a defamatory sense.” It was further quoted that: “A defamatory imputation is one to a man’s discredit, or which tends to lower him in the estimation of others, or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to injure his reputation in his office, trade or profession, or to injure his financial credit. The standard of opinion is that of right thinking person’s generally. To be defamatory an imputation need have no actual effect on a person’s reputation; the law looks only to its tendency.” (emphasis added)

Applying this principle, the Court must consider the Defendant’s Facebook postings in their full context rather than isolating selected words or phrases, so as to determine whether they convey a defamatory imputation against the Plaintiff.

The Defendant employed the words ‘menipu,’ ‘tipu,’ and ‘tertipu’ in reference to the Plaintiff. The terms ‘menipu’ or ‘tipu’ carry the imputation that the Plaintiff had acted dishonestly or in a fraudulent manner, capable of causing harm to the public. The Court is of the view that the statements so issued are defamatory, as they were made with the intent to injure the Plaintiff personally and in reputation. This is evident from the Defendant’s accusation that the Plaintiff had engaged in dishonesty in the conduct of her business. Defences of Justification and Fair Comment

It is trite that once a plaintiff has proved that (1) the impugned words refer to the plaintiff; (2) the impugned words are defamatory in nature; and (3) the words were published and/or communicated to a third party or other persons the burden of proof then shifts to the defendant to establish any defence – see Ayob Saud v TS Sambathamurthi [1989] 1 CLJ 152, HC; Kian Lup Construction v Hongkong Bank Malaysia Bhd [2002] 7 MLJ 283, HC; Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Halim Mohammad v Syed Ahmad Tun (Dr) Syed Nasir & Anor [2013] 8 MLJ 348, HC; Penerbit Sahabat (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v Kalairasi Arumugam [2016] 1 CLJ 30, CA; Allied Physics Sdn Bhd v Ketua Audit Negara (Malaysia) & Anor [2016] 5 MLJ 113, CA; Lim Guan Eng v New Straits Times Press

(M) Bhd [2017] 4 CLJ 369, CA; Tan Sri Dr Muhammad Shafee Abdullah v Tommy Thomas & Ors [2016] 6 AMR 145; [2017] 2 CLJ 453, HC.

In the present case I agree with the learned SCJ that the Plaintiff have established all the 3 elements and the burden then shifted to the Defendant,

In her defence, the Defendant pleaded justification and fair comment. She contends that the statements concerning workmanship charges and displayed prices were factually accurate. She further submits that the Plaintiff and her witnesses admitted to inconsistencies between the displayed and actual prices.

In addition to that, the Defendant’s method of calculation was based on the Plaintiff’s own displayed gold and chain prices, and the omission of workmanship charges contravened Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1999.

Section 8 of Defamation Act 1957 provides as follows: Justification

In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges.

In the case of Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam v. Goh Chok Tong [1989] 3 MLJ 1, the Privy Council outlined four elements necessary to sustain the defence of fair comment, as follows:

(i) the words complained of are comment, although they may consist or include inferences of fact;

At this juncture it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of Wan Hamzah J in the Supreme Court case of S. Pakianathan v Jenni Ibrahim [1988] 2 MLJ 173, where His Lordship stated as follows: “The burden lies upon the defendant to establish justification. The burden does not lie on the plaintiff to prove that the defamatory words are false, because the law presumes this in his favour: Belt v Lawes (1882) 51 LJQB 359-361. To establish justification, the defendant must prove that the defamatory imputation is true. It is not enough for him to prove that he believed that the imputation was true: Peters v Bradlaugh (1884) 4 TLR 565 467).”

In the present case, the learned SCJ found that the defences of justification and fair comment were not established. This was because the Defendant failed to demonstrate any personal experience or expertise in gold trading, admitting instead that she was merely raised in a family engaged in the business without possessing such knowledge herself.

Moreover, the Defendant did not prove that the Plaintiff had engaged in dishonesty in her gold business. No evidence was adduced of any complaint or allegation from members of the public or the authorities suggesting fraud on the Plaintiff’s part.

In light of these considerations, I concur entirely with the findings of the learned SCJ and find no reason to disturb them. Damages

The Defendant submit that the Plaintiff failed to prove reputational harm or actual loss, with no documentary evidence or particulars of business losses pleaded or established.

Further, the damages award of RM50,000.00 was contrary to the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings, as affirmed in RHB Bank Bhd v Kwan Chew Holdings Sdn Bhd [2010] 2 MLJ 188.

The learned SCJ awarded global damages to the Plaintiff in the sum of RM50,000.00.

In hearing the appeal on the award of damages, this Court is guided by the Federal Court decision in Topaiwah v Salleh [1968] 1 CLJU 161, wherein the Federal Court laid down the principles governing the circumstances in which an appellate court may intervene with the damages assessed by the trial judge. The Federal Court stated as follows: “Or another way of putting it - that it is a matter of assessment but not of calculation. So far as this Court is concerned we should, to paraphrase Greer LJ in Flint v. Levell [1935] 1 KB 354, 360 be disinclined to reverse the finding of a trial Judge as to the amount of damages merely because we think that if we had tried the case in the first instance we would have given a lesser sum. To justify reversing him, we should be convinced that he acted upon some wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very small as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage. The assessments which the Courts have made over the years form some guide to the kind of figure which is proper and which the appellate Court will follow in the light of the special facts of each particular case.” (Emphasis added)

At the appellate stage, an appellate court will generally be slow to interfere with the trial judge’s assessment of damages merely on the ground that, had the appellate court tried the case at first instance, it might have awarded a lesser sum. To set aside or vary such an award, the appellate court must be satisfied that the trial judge acted on a wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was so excessive or so inadequate as to constitute a wholly erroneous estimate of damages.

In assessing the appropriate quantum of damages, the learned SCJ was guided by the principles that several factors may be taken into account, as enumerated by Mokhtar Sidin J (as he then was) in the High Court decision of Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun v Haji Hasan Bin Hamzah & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 39, where it was held as follows:” “Therefore, bearing in mind the principle applicable in the assessment of damages and in considering all the various factors, including the following:

(a) The position and standing of the Plaintiff;

(b) The gravity and seriousness of the libel;

(c) The mode and extent of the publication;

(d) The mental distress, hurt, anxiety and mental anguish caused to the plaintiff as a result of the libel;

(e) The uncertainty undergone in litigation;

(f) The conduct of the defendants from the time of the libel down to the very moment of the verdict; and

(g) The absence or refusal of any correction, retraction or apology. This court finds that the award must also be sufficient to convince any person of the baselessness of the libel and act as a necessary and sufficient signal to the public at large of the full vindication of the Plaintiff’s reputation both in Malaysia and internationally.”

The learned SCJ also referred to the judgment of Nik Hashim JCA (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal in Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd & Ors v Tjanting Handicraft Sdn Bhd & Anor [2005] 2 MLJ 397, wherein His Lordship stated as follows: “With regard to the award of aggravated damages, we agree with the learned judge that there is indeed a case for the award. The finding of fact that the Appellants were motivated by actual malice in publishing the article complained of warrants the making of an award of aggravated damages.”

The learned SCJ further found that, as a result of the Defendant’s statements against the Plaintiff published on the Defendant’s Facebook page on 19.11.2018, the Plaintiff’s business profits declined thereafter. This is evident from the sales figures which exceeded RM100,000 in July 2018 (RM113,460), August 2018 (RM220,380), September 2018 (RM113,950), October 2018 (RM99,600), and November 2018 (RM127,200).

However, the Plaintiff’s profits subsequently fell, with average monthly sales reduced to approximately RM95,000 namely December 2018 (RM98,000), January 2019 (RM95,130), February 2019 (RM95,600), and March 2019 (RM93,430).

As a further consequence of the Defendant’s publication, the Plaintiff was subjected to public criticism, as reflected in the comments posted on the Defendant’s Facebook page, which attracted 4,816 responses and were shared 8,058 times by third parties.

The learned SCJ also referred to the case of Chin Choon @ Chin Tee Fut v Chua Jui Meng [2005] 3 MLJ 494, where Gopal Sri Ram JCA at page 501 observed as follows: “[13] There is one matter of some importance that this case has raised. It appears to be the respondent’s argument that separate awards for aggravated and exemplary damages should be made. That is what the High Court did. With respect, we disagree with this approach. For many years it was thought that in all cases of tort global awards should be made, including in claims for personal injuries. However, only in respect of claims for personal injuries, when the courts started awarding interest at different rates on the different heads of damages, it became necessary for courts to make separate awards for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, actual loss of income, future loss and special damages. But in defamation cases it is never the practice to award interest on each separate head of damages. Interest is merely granted on the single award. In our judgment, we should, in defamation cases, maintain the age old practice of making a global award in order to limit the size of awards. Otherwise we will have runaway damages once again. The speech of Lord Hailsham in Cassell v Broome appears to fairly support the view we take of the matter.”

The learned SCJ, having considered the evidence and the relevant authorities, awarded global damages to the Plaintiff in the sum of RM50,000.00. I concur with the decision of the SCJ and find no reason to depart from it. Cross Appeal on Damages

For completeness, as I concurred with the learned SCJ’s award of global damages in the sum of RM50,000.00, the Plaintiff’s cross-appeal, being premised on the opposite basis (of insufficiency) is hereby dismissed.

Based on the above reasons, both the Defendant’s appeal and Plaintiff’s cross appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Cost for the Defendant of RM5,000.00 for appeal and cost of RM5,000.00 for the Plaintiff for the cross appeal. All costs are subject to allocatur. Dated: 25 MAY 2026 (MOHD AIMI ZAINI BIN MOHD AZHAR) Judicial Commissioner High Court Malaya Alor Setar, Kedah Darul Aman Counsel for the Appellant: Puan Nor Aziah bt. Harun (Cik Nurfarah Athirah bt. Muhammad Faizal with her) Messrs Ibrahim & Fuaadah Counsel for the Respondent: Puan Nurul Zaemah bt. Abd Rahman Messrs. Hifdzi Salmiah Kee Hanisah & Co