torts defamation
Question 5
a) Advice Daud whether he would likely to succeed in taking legal action against Mangosteen and Nosey.
The issue is whether Daud Beckam can take legal action against Mangosteen and Nosey for defamation. Defamation according to Lord Atkin in the case of Sim v Stretch is a statement untrue whether oral or written, temporary or permanent, which injures the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or which tends to lower him in the right thinking member of the society or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person. There are two types of defation which are libel and slander. Libel is defamation in permanent form and usually addressed to the eyes either in written or printed. Libel is actionable per se where the plaintiff does not need to prove actual damage. There is case of Dato Syed Kechick bin Syed Mohamad v Dato Yeh Pao Tzu & Ors where the cartoons that the plaintiff was featured imputed that he was used his position with the Foundation to unlawful gathering of personal fortune and there was clear inference which could be drawn by ordinary men that pointed to him as dishonest and untrustworthy. Slander in the other hand includes the defamation in transient form such as in oral or spoken words. Referring to Daud situation, the defamation is actionable per se and falls under libel as the statement was made in written form in the magazine. In order to succeed in his action, there are three elements that need to be fulfilled.
The first element is the words must be defamatory. The court will look to the tendency of the statement to affect the response of the ordinary reader. The test that will be applied is whether the words lower the plaintiff reputation in the minds of the right thinking members of the society. In the case of DP Vijandran v Karpal Singh & Ors, in an allegation that the plaintiff’s advocate and solicitor had committed an offence under section 420 of the Penal Code, the court held that it is
a) Advice Daud whether he would likely to succeed in taking legal action against Mangosteen and Nosey.
The issue is whether Daud Beckam can take legal action against Mangosteen and Nosey for defamation. Defamation according to Lord Atkin in the case of Sim v Stretch is a statement untrue whether oral or written, temporary or permanent, which injures the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or which tends to lower him in the right thinking member of the society or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person. There are two types of defation which are libel and slander. Libel is defamation in permanent form and usually addressed to the eyes either in written or printed. Libel is actionable per se where the plaintiff does not need to prove actual damage. There is case of Dato Syed Kechick bin Syed Mohamad v Dato Yeh Pao Tzu & Ors where the cartoons that the plaintiff was featured imputed that he was used his position with the Foundation to unlawful gathering of personal fortune and there was clear inference which could be drawn by ordinary men that pointed to him as dishonest and untrustworthy. Slander in the other hand includes the defamation in transient form such as in oral or spoken words. Referring to Daud situation, the defamation is actionable per se and falls under libel as the statement was made in written form in the magazine. In order to succeed in his action, there are three elements that need to be fulfilled.
The first element is the words must be defamatory. The court will look to the tendency of the statement to affect the response of the ordinary reader. The test that will be applied is whether the words lower the plaintiff reputation in the minds of the right thinking members of the society. In the case of DP Vijandran v Karpal Singh & Ors, in an allegation that the plaintiff’s advocate and solicitor had committed an offence under section 420 of the Penal Code, the court held that it is