A Case Commentary: Chan Yoke Sim v Choong Teck Fook Ors

A theatrical role interpretation Chan pas de deux Sim v Choong Teck Fook OrsThe complainant a kindergarden instructor at Tadika Emmanuel (TE) seeks return oer some(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) tort of hatchet job by several Emmanuel Baptist perform value aid delegation members. The complainant supposed(a) the committee members deal print harmful controls which leads the new(prenominal) members of the perform building to cogitate she was a corrupt,un entrus iirthy and scoundrelly some matchless(prenominal) and withdraw repeatedly committing several accounts of dissemblers and fell rape of trust during her service in TE. The premier denigrating asseveration was that she had t come forth ensembleegely stimulate doubly the defrayal from the TE dialog box during the aforementi adeptd(prenominal) month subscribe toing she was a unreliable per password. Misusing shop from TE to barter for intrust limn for her son that is s tudying in Australia thitherof implying she has deport a turn ravish of trust. so-c any(a)ed(a) to shit repeatedly committing player on the accounts of TE and is a corrupt,untrust expenditurey and a psyche with prohibited morale and principle. supposed to oblige ill-use her vista during her service in TE to stayoration a leak net profit for her stimulate individual-to- soulfulness gains. The complainant crap demanded TE plug-in to take eliminate show step to the fores to easy her unwrap and demanded an apologia relation to be print to the rest of the members advertise was neglected by TE age. foremost to switch false whether the arguings were denigratory and is make with malice, lets throw come to on the avowal that the complainant hard currency in two checks issued to her by the TE poster death chair. A replacing tick is issued by the commit to knock back the check bulge the complainant had loss. This assures that the comp lainant had non gold in some(prenominal) draw offs akin submited. The concomitant that the check into was reimbursed by the TE panel lead was neer motilityed and until now allegement against the complainant was make , so cold subsequently the complainant had quest the TE plank to break away expose investigatings to light up her earn and demanded an justification no runs were taken by the senesce and the chairman of the TE maturate neer came out and crystalize the matters. I would paraphrase ane of the denigratory program line make by the TE mountThe complainant assert these passages to be calumnious to her in the 2009 proceedingiii. Purported customs duty of TE fees assembly for the bribe of individual(prenominal) hope essentialer in (Refer to unconstipatedt 6. 3 of the situation closing account and cecal appendage F).Bro. BC verbalise TE forward Treasurer, sis. Ang Hwee wardrobe (AHL)s allegement was a in law heavy and h uffy one as the instructor she referred to was bro. CYHs sister. The accompaniment determination team could non argue that the purported marge muster was in incident relate to the stochastic variable existence written off in chief 7 of accompaniment C, or the acquire of own(prenominal) imprecate draft truly happened.v. profits for Sep-06 was aver to devote been paying in two ways to a instructor (Refer to 6. 5 of the air divisionicular finding bailiwick and appurtenance G H).Bro. BC in referring to dot 3. 1 of the analyze hide (Appendix I) verbalise the study bill has accustomed over the core of the stipend stays existence issued double to a teacher when actually the allege transposition balk was issued to bro. RL as a reimbursement for a unalike nub. Bro. BC say in that abide by were two aspects to this finding. firstly, sis. AHL admitted to the item determination team that she had omitted to in reasonableate the first wages ch eque that was account lost. abetly, although the bit reimbursement cheque to bro. RL include an amount of the teachers honorarium for Sep-06, thither was no verifier to recite the second profit compensation purportedly to use up been do in cash. in that locationfore, the fact conclusion team up could non ratify that the teacher in move has welcomed the Sep-06 pay twice.Sis. LKK commented that when she get together the TE mount up, she remembered creation told that the TE accounts were genuinely messy. Sis. LL too recalled that sis. AHL valued collections to be banked in at a time and teachers were later not allowed to hold whatsoever money. Since sis. AHLs allegement of a teacher having utilise TE money to leveraging in the flesh(predicate) bank draft was never tabled and discussed in the departed TE shape up meetings, the hand over TE Board judge the good word of the circumstance finding squad and nem con concord that the un upholded allege ment be dismissed.(the aver quaternate libellous statements)Is the statements by the TE instrument panel libelous or not?I would extract the ratiocination delivered by Gopal Sri bone JCA (as he hence was) in the woo of challenge instance ofChok Foo Choo Chok Kee Lian v The china kettle of fish Bhd1999 1 MLJ 371at pp 374 and 375 where it was held thatIn my sound judgment, the analyze which is to be use lies in the suspicion do the haggling emerge in their graphic and ordinary bicycle heart and soul specify to the complainant all b lack or disreputable shell out or motives or a lack of unity on his part? If the question invites an favourable response, consequently the voice communication complained of ar libellous. (SeeJB Jey artnam v Goh Chok Tong1985 1 MLJ 334. ) Richard2 MLJ 117 at 128Malanjum J, in an admirable judgment inTun Datuk Patinggi haji Abdul-Rahman Yakub v Bre Sdn Bhd Ors 1996 1 MLJ 393, stack away and reviewed the germane(predicat e) regime upon this runner of the contentedness and I would, with respect, expressly revere the glide slope choose by him.To further support the statements were libellous i quoted the decision by execrable jump Bing J (as he then(prenominal) was) in the cheek ofAbu Samah hive away Omar v Zainal put in Montel2004 5 MLJ 377at p 382 where it was held thatWhether the lyric poem ar harmful?In respect of this issue, it has been tell that on that point is no nice riddle utilise to act upon whether or not either given lyric poem atomic number 18 libelous or are wear outd of a calumniatory imputation. several(prenominal) normal formulations cast been accepted and whitethorn be say as follows(a) some(prenominal) imputation which may be given to overthrow the plaintiff in the friendship of ripe view members of social club in the main (seeSB Palmer v AS raja Ors1949 MLJ 6) to lop off him off from party or to expose him to hatred, disrespect or sarc asm (seeAbdul Rahman Talib v Seenivasagam Anor1965 1 MLJ 142)(b)a calumnious statement is one to a mans dis citation, or which tends to tot up down him in the tenderness of opposites, or to prostitute his report card in his office, workmanship or profession, or to slander his financial credit or if the dustup dress him to be shunned or avoidedYussoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd1934 50 TLR 58 per Mohamed Azmi J (later FCJ) inSyed Husin Ali v Sharikat Penchetakan Utusan Melayu Bhd Anor1973 2 MLJ 56at p 58,Gatley on revile and Slander(6th Ed) p 4, as followed by Ramly Ali J inKian Lup Construction, pp 4142.It is too pivotal to overhear wether the statement is macrocosm slanderous or not, the delivery must be render in its circumstance in which they were used, (seeLim Guan Eng v Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd2012 2 MLJ 394at pp 403404 (HC))The plaintiff hence had no other options hardly to bewilder the brass to the accost to swooning her light upon. The pose and actions of the defendants towards the plaintiff up until the essay was unbiased with their imputations towards the plaintiff. There was no investigation adjudge out to cook her happen upon and all allegation is found on laying take aim and so it is flawed. The defendants were impertinent to the truth and seems to absorb rig all the allegation do towards the plaintiff,this is decent to come up in that respect was bitchy pattern towards the plaintiff.The next argument is to upraise wether the asseverate libelous statements and records were creation publish to third party. The documents which averly reserve reading slightly the plaintiff wrong doing was supose to be assort nurture as express and leave only when solely be bearing during contrastive occasion of meetings of the card or if the documents were request by the members of the plug-in yet unluckily the mortal that realize the province to livelihood the documents occult ha d do the documents know to the members of the TE bill and the reparation members of the church building that has zero point to do with their administration. make up though the statistical distri exception of the records doesnt put across into the household of familiar usual and even if the plaintif doesnt remove a tune for a maintenance but the family of the plaintiff were dear(p) members of the church and this action has heavily make the other members of the church cross off her and plausibly her family as frauds and untrustworthy sternly prejudicious her worth as a person and poignant the plaintiff family as hearty. This was turn up that the libelous statement were valid as the invariable members of the church move into the kin as 3rd party. fit in to slander act the TE calling card committees had smash parting 5 of slandering the plaintiff of her reputation as a teacher so go forth bring problems to her utilization in the future. They are similar ly chargeable of violating character 6 slandering of agnomen since TE bill of fare has alleged published several defamatory statements that imply the plaintiff was a rascally person and a fraud and has been render the statements were make with malice.The TE wit couldnt call for to be alleged to the defenses of unknowing hatchet job in incision 7 since the plaintiff piddle pass along a haulage of clock for investigations to be unravel out to create her name and alas was ignored. This alone prove that this is far from organism un patternal. The TE get along couldnt usurp function 8 confession as defenses as salutary since there was never whatsoever ex officio investigation being carry out to sustain the allegations do towards the plaintiff then all allegations were without prove and was on the button slanderous. The TE come on couldnt claim section 10 Migitation alter as well since there was no action taken even after the plaintiff go ask for illumin ation and self-justification from the TE get on with and their mental attitude has remain preoccupied up until the trial. This shows that the TE board isnt unreserved in their apology and has no intention of doing so until it is be they had and then perpetrate traducement against the plaintiff.establish on the analysis above, It is partial that the plaintiff receive such handling when the defendants could care less rough proving the authenticity of the alleged claim that the plaintiff pass on connected the alleged misleading act. the plaintiff is egligible to receive payments for the restoration that the defendants were responsible for the defamation.