Ling Yexiang v LYC MOTHER & CHILD CENTRE SDN BHD
30 cases cited
(0 SG, 30 foreign)
Catchwords
CIVIL APPEAL: Defamation action by the plaintiff against the defendant - The defendant appealed against the decision of the Session Court Judge in allowing the claim - The plaintiff is a subsidiary of LYC Healthcare Berhad and operates a confinement centre - The defendant’s wife was a customer of the plaintiff who stayed at the plaintiff’s centre for 28 days under the confinement package from 15 December 2020 to 11 January 2021 following her delivery – The defendant alleged that on 8 January 2021, his wife suffered food poisoning after consuming food prepared at the plaintiff’s centre on 7 January 2021- The defendant, via his Facebook account at URL https://www.facebook.com/ling.yexiang, posted and published statements that the plaintiff alleges to be defamatory – The same publication was published by the defendant on the Malaysian Blacklisted Confinement Centre Facebook Public Forum - Whether the words complained of are capable of defaming the plaintiff as a matter of law - Whether the statements in their ordinary meaning or as a whole would be understood by an ordinary, reasonable person to carry defamatory imputations - Whether the unequivocal apology ordered by the trial judge is excessive, given that the defendant only published his statement on his Facebook. EVIDENCE LAW: Burden o f proof – Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950.
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
Ling Yexiang v LYC MOTHER & CHILD CENTRE SDN BHD is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated May 15, 2025 (citation: ba-12bcy-8-11-2024). The case was decided by Hazizah binti Kassim.
Key issues: EVIDENCE LAW: Burden o f proof – Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950..
What was the outcome of Ling Yexiang v LYC MOTHER & CHILD CENTRE SDN BHD?
Ling Yexiang v LYC MOTHER & CHILD CENTRE SDN BHD is a High Court decision dated May 15, 2025. The case was heard by Hazizah binti Kassim. See the full judgment for details.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (30)
UK (4)
[1947] 2 All ER 372 [1947] AC 484 [1968] 2 QB 157 [2005] 1 AC 253
MY (26)
[1972] 1 MLJ 45 [1973] 2 MLJ 204 [1988] 2 MLJ 443 [1989] 1 CLJ 152 [1989] 1 MLJ 315 [2004] 4 CLJ 309 [2005] 2 MLJ 1 [2005] 3 MLJ 140 [2008] 8 CLJ 418 [2009] 3 MLJ 141 [2009] 5 MLJ 243 [2010] 2 MLJ 492 [2010] 5 CLJ 301 [2010] 9 CLJ 785 [2012] 3 CLJ 551 [2012] 3 MLJ 1 [2013] 2 MLJ 650 [2013] 3 CLJ 813 [2015] 2 CLJ 453 [2015] 4 CLJ 928 [2015] 9 CLJ 153 [2016] 2 CLJ 885 [2016] 5 MLJ 113 [2016] 7 CLJ 347 [2019] 3 MLJ 720 [2020] 1 CLJ 487
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ba-12bcy-8-11-2024)