By Admin
KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 10): The High Court on Friday ruled that the Malaysian Institute of Architects had defamed Asian International Arbitration Centre’s ex-director Datuk N Sundra Rajoo in two articles.
Judge Datuk Su Tiang Joo ordered the institute to pay RM400,000 in general and aggravated damages over the publication of two articles in 2018. A cost of RM100,000 was also awarded to Sundra Rajoo.
S Thirilogachandran, the then honorary secretary of the institute, was named in the case, solely in his capacity as a registered public officer of the institute.
Under the law, a registered society such as the institute could only be sued through its registered public officer. However, the officer would not be personally liable on any judgment or order entered against the society; only the society remains legally responsible.
In his brief grounds, Su found the two articles published by the institute to be defamatory to Sundra Rajoo.
The institute had published ‘Refuting Unsubstantiated and Misleading Claims on Flaws of Certificate of Completion and Compliance’ which was republished in a WhatsApp group with the title “Feedback for PAM”.
Both were responses to Sundra Rajoo’s article titled ‘Consequences and Flaws to the Certificate of Completion and Compliance: Comparative Analysis with Proposed Solutions’ published in the Malaysian Law journal.
Sundra Rajoo, apart from being a lawyer and arbitrator, is also a registered architect.
Su ruled all three elements of defamation have been proven on a balance of probabilities, meaning that the court found that it is more likely than not, the article referred to Sundra Rajoo, concerns the plaintiff, and contained defamatory language.
Further, the court also ruled on a balance of probabilities that the defendant was motivated by express malice in allowing himself to be jointly identified in the publication of the articles and rejected the defence of fair comment.
“The court found the language used in the article to be carefully chosen to cut, humiliate and to hurt the plaintiff,” Su said. “The words were repeated at different stages and were apparently directed at the author [Sundra Rajoo], rather than a message the author was conveying.”
Su also noted that the defendant did not show remorse and did not tender any apology in granting the damages.
An injunction was also granted, restraining the institute from further publication of the defamatory content contained in the articles. The institute was also ordered to jointly put up with the Malaysia Architect Authority a notice of disassociation in two media publications.
The institute was also to remove the second article from the WhatsApp chat group.
Sundra Rajoo was represented by Rueben Mathiavaranam and Sumita Balasubramaniam while David Lingam, Kamaldip Kaur and Deepinder Kaur appeared for the institute.
Rueben, when contacted by The Edge, confirmed the outcome of the case.
Sundra Rajoo had filed the suit in 2021, claiming the institute had defamed him by publishing the two statements which he claimed were “plainly false, untrue, unwarranted, unsubstantiated, malicious, mischievous and constitute a grave and serious libel” against him.