“This concept (of half-truth) would create legal absurdities as the appellant was found liable for defamation based on the statement she did not make” argued counsel in a recent case before the Federal Court of Malaysia. Despite this contention, the Court rules in Seema Elizabeth Isoy v Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong [2024] 6 CLJ 635 that half-truth statements can constitute a false statement amounting to defamation.
Brief Facts
- The appellant, Seema Elizabeth Isoy (“SEI”), is the registered owner of a unit in Waldrof & Windsor Tower Serviced Apartments (“W&W”) developed by Malaysia Land Properties Sdn Bhd, known as Mayland.
- SEI was in a Whatsapp group consisting of other W&W unit owners.
- The respondent, Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong (“TSDC”) is the chairman and founder of Mayland.
- There were several legal disputes in Court involving Mayland and W&W. In one of the cases, the Court held that Mayland had defrauded and/or made false representations to W&W owners.
- In August 2017, SEI sent messages to the WhatsApp group:
- TSDC sued SEI for defamation.
- Among other things, while TSDC was arrested and charged for conspiring to falsify documents, he was eventually acquitted. TSDC alleged it was defamatory not to mention his acquittal. SEI argued that her statement was fair since she did not say he was convicted, but instead requested readers to Google the names to read more.
- The High Court found that the defence of justification was established as the statements were substantially true, as the Court earlier found that Mayland committed fraud and misrepresentation, and that TSDC was previously arrested and charged for conspiring to falsify documents.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the decision. The Court of Appeal found that SEI’s statements when read as a whole were defamatory and actuated with malice. The Court of Appeal found that it was a defamatory half-truth statement to mention TSDC’s charge from 20 years ago, but not his acquittal.
Findings of the Federal Court
Affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Federal Court found that:
- The sting effect of the statement in totality was that TSDC was charged with the fraudulent act same as his father, imputing that he was not a person of good character. If the acquittal was mentioned, that would have neutralized the sting in the eyes of the readers. Advising readers to Google the information did not neutralise the statement’s defamatory nature.
- Stating that TSDC was charged without mentioning his acquittal constituted a harmful half-truth, making the statement false in substance.
- The full truth was deliberately not disclosed and this placed a different complexion and effect on the statement. Publishing such a statement and expecting readers to seek further information demonstrates malice.
Key Takeaways
Defamation cases involving half-truths can be complex. They typically involve statements that are superficially true but convey a misleading message due to omitted information.
The Federal Court’s decision highlights the need for full and accurate disclosures when publishing statements. Omitting key information can be as defamatory as outright falsehoods. Disclaimers like “Please Google to verify” or “Do your own research” may not shield against defamation claims, especially if key facts are deliberately withheld to maliciously skew the message.
***
This article was written by Th’ng Yan Nie (Partner) from Donovan & Ho’s dispute resolution practice.
Donovan & Ho is a law firm in Malaysia, and our employment practice group has built a reputation for providing strategic employment advice to local and global organisations. Our team of employment lawyers provide advice on employment law and industrial relations including review of employment contracts, policies and handbooks, advising on workforce reductions, and managing dismissals of employees for poor performance or misconduct. We also represent clients in unfair dismissal claims and employment-related litigation. Have a question? Please contact us.
