[ad_1]
UPDATE 16h30 | Newsbank Malaysiakini today obtained the authorization of a three-member court of the Federal Court to challenge an appeal decision deeming defamatory the portal reports on the Australian Raub Gold Mine (RAGM).
ordered the portal earlier this year to pay RM 200,000 in damages and RM 150,000 in court costs to the gold mine
. she added that the questions of law posed to the Supreme Court should focus on the defense of reporting and damages.
"Today's decision is unanimous," she said,
The other judges were Federal Court judges Azahar Mohamed and Aziah Ali J.
Nine questions of law were raised regarding the presentation of the report and the damages The bench asked that the questions be reduced or condensed for the hearing of appeal.
It was reported on the 11th January that Malaysiakini had been sentenced by the Court of Appeal to pay damages of appeal overturned the decision of the High Court of Kuala Lumpur on the l.
The court of appeal had found only the three articles and two videos concerning villagers in Bukit Koman of Pahang, whose health had been allegedly affected because of a local gold mine owned by RAGM, were published "
Malaysiakini was represented by lawyers Cyrus Das, James Khong and Syahredzan Johan, while lawyers Cecil Abraham and Sunil Abraham appeared for RAGM
. the effects of the use of cyanide at the mine and news portal are part of the media that reported it.
The defense of reporting or "neutral reporting" is the place where journalists can report statements made by individuals without any comment. it is presented in a fair and neutral manner.
The lawsuit generated interest because other media organizations would be affected by the judgment.
Among the legal issues raised, if the defense of reporting is legal, a defense distinct from the qualified privilege or the defense of Reynolds' responsible journalism must be considered mutually exclusive and if a defendant is obliged to plead to report or responsible journalism and not pleading them in
On the issue of damages, the question of law arises as to whether an insolvent firm may be allowed to receive payment for goodwill.
In the High Court, for the first time, the courts accepted The report is available for press organizations such as Malaysiakini. Judge Rosnani Saub ruled that the defense is available because the public interest lies not in the veracity of the content of the articles and videos, but on the fact that they were made.
The nine questions are put:
1. Is the report a separate defense of the qualified privilege or Reynolds' defense of responsible journalism and whether it should be considered mutually exclusive?
2. The question of whether the defense of reporting is an offshoot of Reynolds' defense of responsible journalism should be pleaded separately from the argument of responsible journalism itself?
Is the defendant obliged to plead news reporting or responsible journalism and not to plead them in the alternative?
4. The question of whether the reporting defense that is based on an issue of public interest is sufficiently argued if the defendant asserts that the publications were and are still matters of public interest that the defendants were required to publish ? 19659002] 5. Is the proper criterion for determining whether the reporting defense succeeds is the journalist's adoption test of the publication as true and not whether the publication is fair and balanced or whether the journalist establishes its neutrality by independent verification?
. By posting video recordings of statements made by third parties at a press conference, could the mere publication of such a video be considered an embellishment of the allegations or an adoption or adoption of such statements? as being the truth by the media? [19659002] 7. Whether it's an ongoing dispute, articles or videos in dispute should be reviewed at the same time as previous and ongoing media publications on the same topic of public interest for to determine the defense of the report?
8. Is it appropriate to award general damages for the loss of reputation and recognition of reputation to a plaintiff corporation that has been voluntarily liquidated by its creditors?
Whether the loss of goodwill can be recovered as a component of defamatory damages by a plaintiff corporation that became insolvent?
[ad_2]
Source link
