Justice Nordin Hassan said expecting a reader to do further research regarding the information is conduct actuated with malice.
“If the whole truth is revealed, it presents a completely different complexion of the published statement when read by readers,” he said in dismissing a libel appeal by property owner Seema Elizabeth Isoy against businessman David Chiu.
The three-member bench, chaired by Justice Hasnah Hashim, upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision awarding Chiu RM100,000 in damages. The High Court previously dismissed Chiu’s suit.
Justice Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, who was on the bench, ordered Isoy to pay RM50,000 in costs to Chiu when the apex court delivered its oral verdict in January.
According to the facts of the case, Isoy is the registered owner of a unit in Waldorf & Windsor Tower Serviced Apartments (W&W) that was developed by Malaysia Land Properties Sdn Bhd, of which Chiu serves as founder and chairman.
On Aug 17, 2017, she sent a text message to the WhatsApp group comprising 55 other unit owners and their representatives.
In his suit filed in 2019, Chiu said her impugned statement did not reflect the whole truth of the material facts and portrayed him as a fraudster, dishonest, untrustworthy, and had been convicted of fraud.
It was undisputed that Chiu was charged with a fraudulent act, but he was acquitted 20 years ago.
Nordin, in the 42-page judgment posted on the judiciary’s website last week, said there was evidence that Isoy was aware of Chiu’s acquittal when she published the impugned statement in the WhatsApp group.
“However, the appellant (Isoy) omitted to state this material fact,” Nordin said, adding that she had merely asked her readers to search for more details themselves in publishing the impugned statement in the WhatsApp group.
Nordin held that the failure to disclose Chiu’s acquittal placed a different complexion and effect on the statement.
“Thus, a half-truth statement that presents a false impression and harms a person’s reputation is no doubt, defamatory. This kind of statement can safely be considered false in the circumstances,” he added.
Nordin said the principles of English common law on half-truths are applicable in the Defamation Act 1957 under Section 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956.
He said Isoy’s defence of qualified privilege and fair comment was defeated and untenable.
He said her defence of justification was also unsustainable, as the impugned statement was not substantially true and created a false impression among readers.
Isoy was represented by lawyers Manmohan Singh Kang, Aneera Joshini Chowdhury and Lu Yiing Suey, while Chiu was represented by DP Naban, Austen Pereira, K Sivabalan and Goh Wan Pin.