Court dismisses Utusan Melayu's appeal

A three-member panel led by Justice Datuk Zaharah Ibrahim unanimously dismissed Utusan Melayu's appeal against the high court decision.

The panel, also comprising justices Datuk Anantham Kasinather and Datuk Mah Weng Kwai, ordered Utusan Melayu to pay RM20,000 in legal costs to Lim.

"We, too, have read and re-read the records of appeal just as the high court judge had read the pleadings, evidence, submissions and authorities before him.

We unanimously dismiss the appeal with costs," said Zaharah.

Utusan Melayu had appealed against the Dec 14, 2011, George Town High Court's decision to order the company to pay RM200,000 in damages after allowing Lim's defamation suit filed against Utusan Melayu.

Lim, who is Bagan member of parliament and Air Putih assemblyman, had sued Utusan Melayu for defaming him in an article entitled, "Kebiadaban Guan Eng" published by the Malay language daily Utusan Malaysia on Dec 20, 2011.

In his statement of claim, Lim referred to seven paragraphs in the article which he said, the words used, among others, were defamatory to him.

Utusan Melayu, in its statement of defence, stated that the article was published in response to Lim's verbal attack against the paper during his speech at the Pakatan Rakyat convention in Kepala Batas on Dec 19, 2011.

In his decision, High Court judge Varghese George Varughese had ruled that the article was hatched in bad faith and the publication was motivated by spite and malice to subject Lim to contempt and scorn to the public at large, and malign him as the chief minister and elected representative.

Utusan Melayu's lawyer, Mohana Kumar, submitted to the court today that Lim had provoked the newspaper, and Utusan Melayu had qualified privilege to defend itself by replying to the attack.

"Once provoked, the publisher is entitled to attack Lim and such reply amounts to qualified privilege," he said.

Lim's lawyer Jagdeep Singh Deo argued that the high court was correct in ruling that Lim had succeeded in proving the said impugned article was indeed, defamatory of him, and that he was entitled to be awarded damages.