Exercise judicial checks on mega awards, judges told
K KabilanPublished: Mar 17, 2001 4:02 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM
Judges must increase judicial checks on the "troubling" amount of awards given in defamation suits, said Chief Justice Mohamed Dzaidddin Abdullah tonight.
He said that the massive awards handed down in defamation suits created a tilted view that injuries to a man's reputation is more important than personal injury.
Judges must increase judicial checks on the "troubling" amount of awards given in defamation suits, said Chief Justice Mohamed Dzaidddin Abdullah tonight.
He said that the massive awards handed down in defamation suits created a tilted view that injuries to a man's reputation is more important than personal injury.
"I do not ascribe to the notion that our reputation is far more critical than that of our life and limb for there appears to be a huge imbalance between the sizes of these awards," said Dzaiddin at the Bar Council dinner in conjunction with the council's 55th annual general meeting.
Describing the current trend of mega awards in defamation suits as "a blot on the legal landscape", Dzaiddin said since there were no provisions in the rules for plaintiffs to specify their general damages, courts then should exercise their wide discretion with circumspection.
He added that the high claims and the exorbitant awards sought and obtained by litigants has reached a dizzying levels and that this approach was disturbing.
Review awards
Dzaiddin said that the courts seemed to be awarding high awards in accordance to the premium put on one's reputation, especially if one is a public figure.
"Some Commonwealth jurisdictions have moved towards capping such awards. I believe there is much to recommend the position for a more practical approach, whereby the awards are capped or a more structured benchmark be established."
He also said that high awards would only bring into focus the dichotomy between the need to protect reputations and the need to retain freedom of expression.
He said that huge awards made against media would tend to stifle and curb press freedom, adding a benchmark be considered in which courts could weigh the defamation against the countervailing rights of freedom of expression.
"It is therefore time for us on the bench to heighten the judicial check on the size of the awards by conforming the standard of review, making it more uniform and less arbitrary," he added.
Dzaiddin also said that due process should take place where a review can be done as and when a case comes up on appeal.
Free speech
On Thursday, the Bar Council released a report on the effect of defamation laws on free speech, stating that high awards made in defamation suits create an adverse effect on the media and threaten the functioning and emergence of a free and informed media.
The report was to identify the shortcomings in the existing 1957 Defamation Act, especially to highlight the discrepancies between damages awarded by the courts in relation to physical injuries and defamation cases, and called for an amendment to the legislation to provide for an appropriate and rational relationship between the relevant harm to the reputation and the amount of damages awarded.
However, Bar Council took the view that it was not keen in pursuing a legislative change, hoping that the judiciary itself will correct the current flaw of awarding high damages
Yesterday de facto law minister Dr Rais Yatim said amendments to the Defamation Act or court rules may be necessary to curb mega awards, adding that defamation damages must be in line with current needs and principles of law.
Billion-dollar suit
Among some of the mega law suits for defamation in recent years include businessman Badrul Zaman PS Md Zakariah who is seeking RM1.3 billion from eight news organisations, tycoon Ting Pek Khiing who is seeking RM100 million from journalist MGG Pillai, and Mirzan Mahathir who is seeking RM200 million from Dow Jones publication and four others.
According to the Bar Council, the trend of mega awards began in 1995 when the High Court awarded businessman Vincent Tan RM10 million for libel in his suit against journalist MGG Pillai and seven others.
This decision was upheld by the Federal Court in a five-member panel head by controversial ex-chief justice Eusoff Chin.
He said that the massive awards handed down in defamation suits created a tilted view that injuries to a man's reputation is more important than personal injury.
"I do not ascribe to the notion that our reputation is far more critical than that of our life and limb for there appears to be a huge imbalance between the sizes of these awards," said Dzaiddin at the Bar Council dinner in conjunction with the council's 55th annual general meeting.
Describing the current trend of mega awards in defamation suits as "a blot on the legal landscape", Dzaiddin said since there were no provisions in the rules for plaintiffs to specify their general damages, courts then should exercise their wide discretion with circumspection.
He added that the high claims and the exorbitant awards sought and obtained by litigants has reached a dizzying levels and that this approach was disturbing.
Review awards
Dzaiddin said that the courts seemed to be awarding high awards in accordance to the premium put on one's reputation, especially if one is a public figure.
"Some Commonwealth jurisdictions have moved towards capping such awards. I believe there is much to recommend the position for a more practical approach, whereby the awards are capped or a more structured benchmark be established."
He also said that high awards would only bring into focus the dichotomy between the need to protect reputations and the need to retain freedom of expression.
He said that huge awards made against media would tend to stifle and curb press freedom, adding a benchmark be considered in which courts could weigh the defamation against the countervailing rights of freedom of expression.
"It is therefore time for us on the bench to heighten the judicial check on the size of the awards by conforming the standard of review, making it more uniform and less arbitrary," he added.
Dzaiddin also said that due process should take place where a review can be done as and when a case comes up on appeal.
Free speech
On Thursday, the Bar Council released a report on the effect of defamation laws on free speech, stating that high awards made in defamation suits create an adverse effect on the media and threaten the functioning and emergence of a free and informed media.
The report was to identify the shortcomings in the existing 1957 Defamation Act, especially to highlight the discrepancies between damages awarded by the courts in relation to physical injuries and defamation cases, and called for an amendment to the legislation to provide for an appropriate and rational relationship between the relevant harm to the reputation and the amount of damages awarded.
However, Bar Council took the view that it was not keen in pursuing a legislative change, hoping that the judiciary itself will correct the current flaw of awarding high damages
Yesterday de facto law minister Dr Rais Yatim said amendments to the Defamation Act or court rules may be necessary to curb mega awards, adding that defamation damages must be in line with current needs and principles of law.
Billion-dollar suit
Among some of the mega law suits for defamation in recent years include businessman Badrul Zaman PS Md Zakariah who is seeking RM1.3 billion from eight news organisations, tycoon Ting Pek Khiing who is seeking RM100 million from journalist MGG Pillai, and Mirzan Mahathir who is seeking RM200 million from Dow Jones publication and four others.
According to the Bar Council, the trend of mega awards began in 1995 when the High Court awarded businessman Vincent Tan RM10 million for libel in his suit against journalist MGG Pillai and seven others.
This decision was upheld by the Federal Court in a five-member panel head by controversial ex-chief justice Eusoff Chin.
View Comments0