Abdul Rahman Sebli, who delivered the majority judgment, said Malaysiakini did not specifically plead the defence of reportage when sued by Raub Australian Gold Mine (RAGM).
The judge said the appellant could not merely rely on Reynolds’ defence of responsible journalism.
Concurring with him were judges Zaleha Yusof and Hasnah Mohammed Hashim.
Rahman said even if the defence of reportage was pleaded, Malaysiakini was merely adopting the stand of the Bukit Koman residents who protested against the mining activities.
“The reports were not in neutral fashion,” he said, adding that the news portal did not make an attempt to verify its reports.
“Reportage” is reporting what is said by a party without embellishment while in the defence of responsible journalism, the media must have made an attempt to contact the other side before publishing an article.
Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, in his dissenting judgment, said the issue raised was of public interest and the media deserved protection.
He said the mining activities were earlier raised by other news outlets and in the Pahang state assembly.
“The issue was not the truth of the content but the concern of the local residents,” he said.
Bench chairman Vernon Ong Lam Kiat was the other judge in the minority.
Harminder said news was a perishable item and it would be onerous for the media to quickly and independently verify a claim.
“In conclusion, the Court of Appeal was wrong in fact and law,” he said, adding that the press played a crucial role as watchdog of the people.
The bench also awarded RM200,000 in costs for proceedings in the Federal Court.
In 2018, the Court of Appeal ordered Malaysiakini to pay RM200,000 in damages and RM150,000 in costs to RAGM, which was represented by Cecil Abraham.
Lawyers Cyrus Das, James Khong, Edwin Lim and Syahredzan Johan appeared for Malaysiakini.
The Court of Appeal had found that the three articles and two videos published in 2012 in relation to the gold mining activities of RAGM were unbalanced and one-sided as they did not carry responses from the Department of Environment, the health ministry and the Land and Mines Department.
The High Court had, on May 23, 2016, dismissed RAGM’s claim against Malaysiakini and three other defendants.