The plaintiff, a famous television personality, sued the publisher of a magazine for defamation over an article mentioning a third person in the plaintiff's marriage and payment to her husband. The court found the words exposed the plaintiff to ridicule and lowered her esteem, awarding RM100,000 in general damages and RM100,000 in aggravated damages. The defendant unsuccessfully argued the plaintiff consented and it apologized, but the court found the apology insufficient. On appeal, the court overturned aggravated damages, finding the article was complimentary and the apology met criteria for withdrawal.

1. Normala Samsudin
v
Keluarga
Communication
Group 4
Farahin- Jannah
- Nabihah

2. Facts
• P is a famous television personality & prime time
newscaster with TV3.
• D is the publisher of Mingguan Wanita (MW)
• On the MW issue 26 Jan- 2 Feb, D published an
article mention a third person in P’s married life
& payment of RM3m to her husband to release
her ( by tebus talak).
• P sued D for defamatory.
• D contended that P gave her consent to publish
the article & D had apology in the next magazine
for publishing the article.

3. Issue(s)
• Whether the article had brought
defamatory to the Plaintiff ???
• Whether the Plaintiff authorized the
article to be publish ???

4. Judgement
• The court award a sum of RM100,000 as general
damages for the libel, and RM100,000 as
aggravated damages.
• The words were indeed expose the plaintiff to
hatred, ridicule or contempt in the mind of a
reasonable man or to lower her in the esteem of right
thinking members of the public generally.
• The defendant’s half hearted attempt at an apology
was an other factor to consider in awarding
aggravated damages.

5. Type of defamation
• Libel
- Defamation in a permanent form and usually
visible to the eye.
- Actionable per se
- The law presumes that when a person’s
reputation is assailed, same damages must result.
- The defendant published an article which
mentions a third person in her marriage and the
payment of RM3 million to her husband to
release her from her marriage bond

6. Defences of defamation
• Apology
- The criteria of an effective apology.
- A clear print of ‘MOHON MAAF’ (we apologise).
- Together with an explanation that earlier article
was withdrawn.
• Consent/ Volenti non fit injuria
- If a person (plaintiff) clearly gives his consent for
any words/statements to be published, then the
defendant may raise this defence.

7. FYI…
• In 3 Jan 2006, the defendant appeals against
the award of aggravated damages.
• The CoA held that, the learned trial judge had
overlooked the article. The article was actually
a complimentary of the plaintiff
• Regarding the half-hearted apology, the CoA
considered that the apology had met the
criteria of a full and frank withdrawal of the
charges regarding the plaintiff.