Judicial Commissioner Choong Yeow Choy said experienced counsel should be capable of estimating the damages likely to be awarded in any given case.
“By examining the trend of damages awarded in similar cases, and as ultimately determined by this court, it is clear that the damages awarded in this instance were not even close to the jurisdictional limit of the sessions court,” he said.
Choong’s remarks were made when awarding RM40,000 in damages to a confinement centre for libel committed by a mother who was there to recuperate after delivering her child.
He said that if the plaintiff, Mylove Confinement Centre Sdn Bhd, had launched its suit in the sessions court, it would limit itself to damages not exceeding RM1 million which is the pecuniary limit set out in Section 65(1)(b) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948.
He acknowledged that there may be circumstances which would justify bringing a suit in the High Court even when the monetary value of the claim is within the competency of the subordinate courts.
“One such justification would be where a plaintiff anticipates that there may be a need for the judgment to be enforced out of jurisdiction,” he said, pointing out that such suits must be filed in the High Court.
Choong said it was important for solicitors to exercise prudence and take the necessary steps to ensure that civil proceedings are initiated in the appropriate legal forum.
“This is crucial for the fair and efficient administration of justice,” he said in a 42-page judgment posted on the judiciary’s website last week.
The defendant, Eliza Ng, was sued after she commented about the quality of care she received during a 28-day stay at the confinement centre four years ago.
She said the food provided to her was not suitable to be eaten during the confinement period and that the plaintiff had conducted its business without integrity.
The confinement centre claimed the impugned statements had exposed it to hatred, ridicule and contempt and had lowered its reputation among right-thinking members of society.
In her defence, Ng claimed that the posting was a “mere narration of her post-natal experience”.
“A closer examination of the entire post reveals that these statements are laced with sarcasm when considered in context,” Choong said in his judgment.
He said Ng could not avail herself of the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege she had advanced to ward off the suit.
Choong also said he took judicial notice that the plaintiff was only incorporated in September 2018. As such, it would only have been in business for just over two years when Ng’s post was published.
“No goodwill or good reputation of the business has been proven,” Choong said in his decision.