NEWTON INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE

NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY 2023
DEM 1243 INTRODUCTION TO CIVIL LAW
GROUP ASSIGNMENT

TITLE
LAW OF DEFAMATION AND DEFENCES OF DEFAMATION
_____________________________________________________
GROUP MEMBERS:

STUDENTS NAME BATCH ID NUMBER

1. Yokieshnthawary A/P Yokieswaran 27A DEM0622344
2. Neeresh Kumar A/L Sri Devan 27A DEM0622101
3. Nithiasri A/P Ragurau 27A DEM0622228
4. Sharvindvarma A/L Subramaniam 27A DEM0622129
5. Suriya Moorthy A/L Suresh 27A DEM0622084
6. Kumaran A/L Visunathan 27A DEM0622103
7. Sashirekha A/P Nalarajan 27A DEM0622290
8. Dheishree A/P Vel Murugan 27B DEM0622089

SUBMITTED TO:
MISS THANALECHUMI
TARIKH HANTAR:
13TH SEPTEMBER 2022
 TABLE OF CONTENT
BIL TITLES PAGE
NUMBERS
1. Introduction To Civil Law 1

2. Suharnizan Md Sidek v Noorazira Pissal [2022] 1 Lns 2054 2

3. The Contesting Parties 3

4. Fact Of Case 4

5. Legal Issues 5

6. Principles Of Law 6

7. Analysis Of Referred Case Laws 7

8. Court Judgement 8

9. Conclusions 9

10. Reference 10
Introduction To Civil Law
Civil law systems, often known as continental or Romano-Germanic legal
systems, are present on all seven continents and make up around 60% of the global
legal landscape. They are based on ideas, classifications, and regulations taken from
Roman law, with some canon law influence, and occasionally greatly supplemented
or modified by local custom or culture. Although secularised over the ages and
emphasising individual freedom more, the civil law tradition encourages human
collaboration.

The terms "civil law" refer to the law that governs people, objects, and the
interactions that arise between them in their technical, narrow sense, omitting not just
criminal law but also commercial law, labour law, and numerous other types of
legislation. Civil law is a broad body of regulations and concepts that are frequently
codified and readily available to both laypeople and legal professionals. On the basis
of a logical and dynamic taxonomy derived from Roman law and mirrored in the
structure of the codes, it is a well-organized system that encourages cooperation,
order, and predictability. Civil codes avoid going into too much detail and contain
generic phrases that allow for adaptation to change, making it a flexible structure.
Last but not least, a system that is essentially legislative with some latitude for the
court to interpret the law and use creative jurisprudence to adapt the law to societal
change and new demands.

The relationship between the state and the individual is the main emphasis of
civil law, which also addresses the interpersonal relationships within a society. For
instance, civil matters include libel, defamation, and contract violations. In contrast to
criminal proceedings, which are pursued by the state, civil cases are started by an
individual, or plaintiff as it is known in law. Any compensation can only be monetary,
and judges typically resolve cases. Custodial sentences cannot be handed out by a
judge in a civil court.

The goal of civil law, like the goal of every subject of law, is objectivity. It's a
means of ensuring equal representation and fairness for all citizens, in theory. The
reality, however, can be very different, particularly for those who lack the funding or
support to pay for legal fees.

1
Suharnizan Md Sidek v Noorazira Pissal [2022] 1 Lns 2054

Suharnizan Md Sidek vs. Noorazira Pissal 1 Lns 2054[2022] is a case in which

the plantitif, Suharnizan Md Sidek, filed a lawsuit against the defendan, Noorazira
Pissal, over a legal issue in which the plantitif was humiliated on Facebook, and the
video went viral. The High Court ordered 'influencer,' Noorazira Pissal, also known as
Eira Aziera, to pay RM100,000 in damages and RM30,000 in legal fees to Suharnizan
Md Sidek, a victim of bodyshaming.

Suharnizan's lawyer, Mohd Rasheed Hassan, stated that on May 30, judicial
commissioner Datuk Seri Shamsulbahri Ibrahim made the decision online in his
client's legal suit against Eira Aziera. He stated that the decision was reached after a
five-day online trial from October 24 to 28, 2021. Suharnizan was previously reported
to have written a comment on cooking and diet products on August 18, 2020 around
10 a.m., which was then shared by a friend on Noorazira's Facebook account.

Soon after, Noorazira made a video recording in which she uttered a slew of
derogatory remarks about Suharnizan. She also compared the latter's body shape to
that of an animal, even showing pictures of Suharnizan and her son before the video
went viral on the internet. However, netizens chastised Noorazira's actions, and she
later apologised in a separate video. She claimed she was unable to control her
emotions and words, which offended many people. Suharnizan then filed a report at
the Johor Baru South district police headquarters here on September 15, 2020,
accompanied by her lawyer Mohd Rasheed. Following the report, she filed the
lawsuit.

Suharnizan, who is also an oath commissioner, and her lawyer Mohd Rasheed
Hassan have issued a 14-day demand to the influencer, whose real name is Noorazira
Pissal, to issue a public apology and pay RM2 million compensation. Rasheed
explained that the compensation was for the trauma caused by Eira and her action of
body shaming his client during the stream on August 18.

2
The Contesting Parties

In this case, the opposing parties are plantitif, defendan, and the High Court.
Suharnizan Binti Md Sidek, 39, a commissioner oath, was affected by a slew of
derogatory remarks about her body, which caused her to suffer from depression and
anxiety. She refered this problem to her lawyer, Mohd Rasheed Hassan and she filed
an lawsuit against the defendan with his help.

The defendant, Noorazira, or better known as Eiera Aziera, 39, is a social

media influencer, entrepreneur and commercial ambassador who made a video about
the plantitif's comment by using a slew of derogatory remarks about the plantitif's
body, and defaming the Plaintiff as a  person who only wants cheap  publicities which
is the main cause of this lawsuit.

The Malaya High Court in Johor Bahru, Johor Darul Takzim, Malaysia, is the
place where the case has been handled by the professionals and the judgement of this
case has been given by the prospects of defamatory. The typical type of  defamation is
an attack upon the moral character of the Plaintiff  attributing crime, dishonesty,
untruthfulness, ingratitude or  cruelty.

3
Fact Of The Case

This case started when the plantitif, Suharnizan posted a comment about
cooking and diet products on Noorazira's Facebook account around 10 a.m. on August
18, 2020. Soon after, the defendan, Noorazira recorded herself using various abusive
words directed at Suharnizan. She also compared the latter's body shape to that of an
animal, even showing pictures of Suharnizan and her son before the video went viral.

Suharnizan filed an RM2 million lawsuit against Noorazira, 39, at the Johor
Bahru High Court on October 13, 2020, claiming the latter had insulted her physical
appearance. The plantitif, Suharnizan then filed a report at the Johor Baru South
district police headquarters on September 15, 2020, accompanied by her lawyer Mohd
Rasheed. Following the report, she filed the lawsuit. The compensation was for the
victim's trauma and Eira's action of body shaming his client during the stream on
August 18.

Suharnizan's lawyer, Mohd Rasheed Hassan, stated that Datuk Seri

Shamsulbahri Ibrahim, the Judicial Commissioner, made the decision in Suharnizan's
suit against Eira Aziera online on May 30. The decision was reached after a five-day
online hearing from October 24 to 28, 2021, taking into account all witness testimony
and reading both parties' arguments.

4
Legal Issues

The legal issues of this case is when the plantitif was humiliated when the
defendant made a video about the plantitif's comment by using a slew of derogatory
remarks about the plantitif's body, and defaming the Plaintiff as a  person who only
wants cheap  publicities which is the main cause of this lawsuit.

Body shaming is punishable under Section 233 (1)(b) of the Communications

and Multimedia Act 1998. If convicted, the perpetrator faces a maximum of one year
in prison, a fine of RM50,000, or both. Offenses punishable by up to five years in
prison under Section 509 of the Penal Code, while those convicted under Section 14
of the Minor Offences Act face a maximum fine of RM100.

Section 233, which criminalises online content that is "obscene, indecent,

false, threatening, or insulting in nature," is too broad, prone to misuse, and
sometimes used arbitrarily. It has to be repealed so it can be rejected by frequent use
of the law to criminalise political expression and subject government critics to
multiple police investigations and criminal prosecutions.

5
Principles of Law

Principles of law which is applied in this case is civil justice. The civil justice
system allows a person or entity, known as the plaintiff, to sue another person or
entity, known as the defendant, for some type of harm or wrongdoing. If the court
rules in the plaintiff's favour, they are usually awarded damages or some form of
compensation from the defendant under tort law. A tort is defined as an act or
omission that causes injury or harm to another and constitutes a civil wrong for which
courts impose liability. In the context of torts, "injury" refers to the violation of any
legal right, whereas "harm" refers to a monetary loss or detriment that an individual
suffers.

In this case, the defendant body shamed the plantitif in the form of a video,
which harmed the plantitif's mental health, and she filed a defamation lawsuit against
the defendant, seeking RM2 million in compensation for the damages. The plantitif
proved that she is alligible for the compensation with evidence where the defendant
humiliated the plantitif’s dignity. This case was under tort law, where the plantitif
filed an defamation lawsuit against the defendan and the defendant has to obey the
court rules to avoid serious actions.

6
Analysis Of Referred Case Laws

To ensure that the parties will understand the rulings, the court has referred
some older instances. Defamation has been the main subject. The first case that was
mentioned is Ayob Saud v. TS Sambanthamurthi (1989) 1 CLJ 152; [1989] 1 MLJ
315, where Mohamed Dzaiddin J. as the Lordship brought up the issue under the
Defamation Act of 1957 that the remarks are defamatory, the words refer to the
plaintiff, and the words were published. The Court of Appeal determined that the
plaintiff has the burden of establishing the existence of the three components.

Secondly, the Court outlined what the court should do while handling a
defamation lawsuit in Chok Foo Choo v. The China Press Bhd [1999] 1 CLJ 461.
According to Gopal Sri Ram JCA, the lordship, the first step in a defamation action is
to determine whether the words complained of are capable of having a defamatory
meaning. The next step in the investigation is for a court to determine whether the
words complained of are actually defamatory, so it will be a fact-based decision based
on the specifics of a given case.

Thirdly, Harmindar Singh FCJ stated in Dato' Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail
v. Nurul Izzah Anwar & Anor [2021] 4 CLJ 327 that in order to determine the
meaning of the statement or publication, the plaintiff may depend on the natural and
ordinary meaning or the innuendo meaning.

Fourthly, the court determined that the defendant was responsible even if the
defamatory words were reproduced by a third party in Chua Jui Meng v. Hoo Kok
Wing & Anor [2000] 6 CLJ 390. The court ruled that the first defendant should be
held accountable for the aforementioned subsequent republication because the law
makes this explicit. The defendant acknowledged using Facebook Live on November
18, 2020, to conduct a live broadcast that included the false statements.As a result,
the defamatory words made by the defendant were heard and understood by the
online community who followed and watched the live broadcast. Before the
defendant cancelled the broadcast from her Facebook Live account on 14.9.2020, this
broadcast was afterwards gathered and repeated by third parties. As a result, the
Defendant's use of defamatory language during the Facebook Live broadcast on
November 18, 2020, was never denied. It's important to remember that the Defendant

7
never disputed or denied the accuracy of the videos that the aforementioned channels
rebroadcast.
Fifthly, According to the court's ruling in Lim Guan Eng v. Utusan Melayu
(M) Bhd [2012] 2 CLJ 619, once the elements of defamation have been met, the
defendant now has the burden of demonstrating that the allegedly defamatory words
or statements are not true. The Defendant's knowledgeable counsel contended that the
alleged remarks are not defamatory because they were used by the Kedahan (northern
people) without any desire to harm the Plaintiff's reputation. However, the Defendant
did not present any expert witnesses to back up the claim.

Sixthly, with regard to damages, Gopal Sri Ram JCA, as he was then, ruled in
Chin Choon v. Chua Jui Meng [2005] 2 CLJ 569 that the learned authors of
Defamation Law, Procedure & Practice by Price & Duodu (3rd edition), para 20-04 at
p. 208, laid out the various factors that a court must consider when determining
compensatory damages. The severity of the allegation, the size and influence of the
circulation, the impact of the publication, the extent and nature of the claimant's
reputation, the behaviour of the defendant, and the claimant's behaviour all play a role
in determining the amount of damages awarded for vindication and injury to
reputation and feelings. In this present case, the Defendant not only defamed the
Plaintiff, but the former also body-shamed the latter.

Finally, the Federal Court declared in Datuk Mohd Ali bin Hj Abdul Majid &
Anor (both practising as Messrs Mohd Ali & Co) v. Public Bank Bhd [2014] 4 MLJ
465 that the purpose of an award of damages is to provide the claimant with
recompense for the damage, loss, or harm he has experienced. Coming back to the
case, given that the Defendant's words not only defamed the Plaintiff but also
cyberbullied and body shamed her, the Plaintiff's and the Defendant's professions, his
position as someone with more than 700,000 Facebook followers, the timeline
leading up to the defamatory statements made by the Defendant, and other relevant
factors, it is concluded that RM 100,000 is a reasonable amount to pay as overall
compensation to the Plaintiff.

8
Court Judgement

The court has announced the judgement that the defendant has to do com

Conclusions

9
Reference

10