Whether Jo and Salma can be made liable for defamation against Leha.

According to Lord Atkin in Sim V Stretch, defamation is “A statement untrue which injures the reputation
of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule or which tends to lower him in the esteem of
right thinking members of society or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person”.

Defamatory statements comes in two types which are libel and slander. Libel are statements made in
permanent form while slander are statements made in a temporary form.

Libel is actionable per se. As in MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun, it was laid down, the law
presumes that when a person’s reputation is assailed, some damage must result.

Libel can also be observed in Datuk Syed Kechik Syed Mohamad v Datuk Yeh Pao Tzu & Ors, the court
granted the plaintiff’s application for an interim injuction as the defamatory statement published through
caricatures of the plaintiff by the defendant in the newspaper disclosed a clear case of libel.

Slander is not actionable per se. However, the exceptions in which slander becomes actionable per se is,
slander to women, slander in relation to a person’s professional or business reputation, slander in relation
to title, slander of goods and malicious falsehood, imputation of a contagious disease and imputation of
a crime. ( BY BOOK GOT 5 EXECEPTIONS )

Slander is not actionable per se. However, the exceptions in which slander becomes actionable per se is,
imputation of a criminal offence by imprisonment or whipping, imputation of a contagious or infectious
disease to prevent other persons from associating with plaintiff, imputation of unchastity or adultery of
any woman or girl and imputation of incompetence or dishonesty in any office, profession carried on by
the plaintiff at the time the slander was published. ( BY SLIDES GOT 4 EXCEPTIONS )
Slander to women can be supported in Section 4 of Penal Code, where it provides that the publication of
words which imputes unchastity or adultery to any women or girl requires no proof of special damage for
the action to succeed.

In Ummi Hafilda Ali v Ketua Setiausaha Parti Islam Se Malaysia (PAS), the court found that Section 4
applied when the plaintiff who was described as being of a marriageable age, was subject to defamatory
words published in the defendant’s magazine, stating that she was ‘a small time hooker obsessed with
Deputy Prime Ministers’ , ‘a tacky Malaysian bimbo’ , ‘a mentally unbalanced woman who designs tacky,
gaudy clothing’, as these words could affect her prospect of marriage as a Malay Muslim woman living in
a society which still adheres to the traditional concept of chastity and sanctity of marriage.

In Luk Kai Lam v Sim Ai Leng, the court held since the words used has questioned the appellant’s chastity,
special damage need not be proven. Slander was established.

By applying the two above cases to this situation, it can be seen that Leha’s circumstance can be narrowed
down to slander to women. The defamatory issue all started when Salma told her husband of the
statement “She’s no better that a prostitute” and “when you think of all the lies she must have told, she’s
the last person you’d trust”. This defamatory statement has lured Jo to think Salma is immoral and
dishonest. This has effected Salma’s job application when Jo told his personnel officer of what his wife
told him.

In order for Leha’s claim for defamation to be successful, there are three elements that needs to be
fulfilled.

The first element is, the statement made must contain a defamatory meaning. The general rule is, this
requirement is satisfied when the words have a tendency to lower the estimation of the plaintiff in the
minds of right thinking member of society generally as per Mohamad Azmi J in Syed Husin Ali v Syarikat
Perchetakan Utusan Melayu Bhd.

Words may be defamatory in one of these three ways; by natural and ordinary meaning, innuendo, or
juxtaposition.

By natural and ordinary meaning, this can be observed in Hasnul Abdul Hadi v Bulat Mohamed where the
court held labelling a Muslim man as ‘Abu Jahal’ is defamatory as it imputes that person as a big liar,
untrustworthy and irresponsible.

In relation to the Leha’s case to Hasnul’s , it can be derived that when Salma labelled Leha as a prostitute
and called her dishonest is defamatory as that would indicate or portray Leha as a immoral muslim lady.

Thus, this shows that the first element has been fulfilled because the words used are defamatory and by
its natural and ordinary meaning.

The second element is, the words must be referred to the plaintiff. The test to establish this element was
laid down in David Syme v Canavan, the test being – whether an ordinary reader would reasonably come
to the conclusion, based on the statement as a whole that it referred to the plaintiff.
In virtue of Abdul Khalid v Parti Islam Se Malaysia & Ors, it is not necessary that the public at large or the
whole world should understand the words to be referring to and defamatory of the plaintiff. It is sufficient
that those who know the plaintiff believe that he is the person referred to.

By applying David Syme’s case into Leha’s situation, it is suffice to say that the defamatory words were
clearly intended to Leha when Salma told Jo. This is because, upon remembering the conversation Jo had
with Salma, he had told his personnel officer that Leha is said to be immoral and dishonest. This has caused
the officer to not accept Leha’s job application. This, in return also proved that Jo has defamed Leha to
the personnel officer as well. In short, the second element has been fulfilled by both Jo and Selma.

The last element is, the words must be published. Publication means the dissemination of the defamatory
words or material to a third party, other than the plaintiff. Publication may be in words or writing or print
and is effected by any act on the part of the defendant which conveys the defamatory meaning of the
matter to the person to whom it is communicated.

In Matchplan (M) Sdn Bhd v William D Sinrich & Anor, it is said in this case that if the words or printed
material are not heard or seen by a third parties, and only the plaintiff hears or sees them, publication
does not arise.

In contrast to Leha’s case, the words have been spread to a third party when Selma told Jo and also when
Jo told his personnel officer. This shows that the defamatory words are made known to other people and
the words has injured Leha’s reputation and has drastically caused her dignity to be threatened.

However, there are several defenses that Jo and Salma can use to defend themselves in light of this
occurrence, which are; unintentional defamation, apology, innocent dissemination, justification,
privileges, fair comment and __________

In short, Jo and Selma has fulfilled the third element.