Apprentice

1113 WordsApr 23, 20155 Pages
Issues: Whether Chef See Deh could take action against Chef Becok for defamation? Principle of law: Defamation exists where there is publication that has tendency to lower the person’s reputation or to cause him to be shunned or avoided by reasonable person in society and thereby adversely affecting his reputation. The applicable law in Malaysia in governing this tort case is Defamation Act 1957. According to Lord Atkins in the case of Sim v Stretch, defamatory statement is one which injuries 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. There are two different type of defamation namely libel and slander. Libel is defamation…show more content…
A caddy was seen pointing to the plaintiff, indicating that the plaintiff’s performance was as good as the quality of the defendant’s chocolate. The advertisement was for the defendant’s choc. The words/picture were not defamatory on the face of it but the innuendo was that the plaintiff had received payment for the advertisement. Defendant liable as those who knew the plaintiff status may assume plaintiff consented and been paid for the advertisement. Second element is the words must refer to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove the defendant’s words refer to him. The test to be applied is objective test, which are the words it would be reasonable in the circumstances to lead persons acquainted with the plaintiff to believe that he was the person referred to? The plaintiff need not necessarily named may be described (word, picture & etc) so as to be organized. In Atip bin Ali v Josephine Nunis & Anor the defendant sued Datuk Rahim Thamby Chik for breach of promise to marry but did not pursued her claim after the writ had been filed. The newspaper found out about the writ and published the matter. The plaintiff and all UMNO members of Alai Melaka claimed that as a result of the publication the members of PAS and Wanita UMNO avoided them because they supported an adulterer. The court held that the word UMNO did not appear in the writ. If
Open Document