Strata developments involve regular interaction between residents, property managers, and management committees. While these interactions are essential to managing their common property, they can sometimes lead to disagreements. In some cases, these disputes result in statements that damage someone’s reputation.
Defamation in strata communities is common. It can happen through official channels like meeting minutes or circulars, or through casual platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, or emails. Whether intentional or not, such statements can lead to legal action.
This article explains how defamation can arise in Malaysian strata developments. We cover defamation principles, real-life examples, and practical steps to avoid defamation claims. Understanding these basics can help residents, committee members, and property managers communicate responsibly and reduce the risk of legal problems in their community.
Proving Defamation
In Malaysia, defamation claims are governed by the Defamation Act 1957. For a comprehensive understanding of defamation law, refer to our detailed article here.
Essentially, to succeed in a defamation claim, the plaintiff must prove 3 elements:
- The statement must be defamatory;
- The defamatory statement must be published; and
- The defamatory statement must refer to the claimant.
Common Traits of a Defamatory Statement
In strata communities, defamatory statements can arise in both formal and informal settings. These include official notices or circulars from the Management Corporation (MC) or Joint Management Body (JMB), discussions during committee meetings or general meetings (AGMs/EGMs), and informal posts or messages shared through WhatsApp, emails, or social media platforms. Such statements that are deemed defamatory often carry one or more of the following traits:
- False statements;
- Exaggerated and derogatory remarks;
- Personal criticism;
- Spiteful comments.
These risks typically arise when developers, property managers, or committee members perform their duties, such as maintaining the property, managing finances, enforcing by-laws, or dealing with defaulters. While these roles require regular communication, care must be taken in how information is conveyed. Statements made through circulars, meeting minutes, or complaints to authorities may give rise to defamation claims if they contain inaccurate or harmful content. Several Malaysian cases have shown that poorly worded or unsubstantiated statements, even if made during the performance of duties, can amount to defamation and attract legal liability. The following examples illustrate how defamation commonly arises in both formal and informal settings.
In Tawfiq Ayman & Anor v Perbadanan Pengurusan One Menerung & Ors [2023] 1 LNS 1218, the plaintiffs took legal action on the basis that certain statements in the chairman’s report were defamatory. These statements accused them of breaching the by-laws by installing a water pressure booster pump without approval. The plaintiffs claimed the installation had been authorised. The report was shared with other residents and the same statements were later repeated at the AGM. This case shows that both the publication of written statements and the act of repeating them may expose individuals or committees to defamation claims.
In Wong Ming & Anor v Megan Avenue II Management Corporation & Ors [2022] 1 LNS 270, the management published a list of owners who allegedly owed outstanding fees. However, the list mistakenly included individuals who had no arrears. Although an apology was issued, the affected owners took legal action for defamation. This case highlights that publishing incorrect information about defaulters, even unintentionally, can lead to a defamation claim in a strata setting.
Defamatory statements can also arise in informal settings, particularly on social media or messaging platforms. In these situations, residents may post or forward comments that include harsh criticism of the management or personal attacks against developers, unit owners, or committee members. Even if shared casually, such statements can still give rise to legal claims if they damage a person’s reputation.
In Tan Sri David Chiu Tat Cheong v Seema Elizabeth Soy [2023] 6 CLJ 51, the defendant, a committee member of the management corporation, was sued for defamation after making damaging remarks about the plaintiff in a WhatsApp group with 55 other unit owners. The plaintiff, who was the founder of the company that developed the property, was described as fraudulent, dishonest, and a criminal. The statements were found to be partially untrue. This case shows that defamatory statements made in private messaging groups can still lead to legal action if they harm a person’s reputation.
In Amber Court Management Corporation & Ors v Hong Gan Gui & Anor [2014] 1 LNS 1384, the management corporation and its council members filed a defamation suit against unit owners over statements posted on Facebook. The posts contained allegations against the management and council, which were claimed to be defamatory. This case highlights that public social media posts about the management and committee can also give rise to defamation claims.
Common Defences to Defamation in Strata Communities
Not all negative or critical statements amount to defamation. In some situations, even statements that may appear defamatory can be legally justified. Malaysian law recognises several key defences that may protect individuals from liability if the statements were made under proper circumstances.
The most common defences include the following:
- Justification;
- Fair comment; and
- Qualified privilege.
Justification
The defence of justification applies when the statements made are true or substantially true. If the person who made the statement can prove its truth, the defence will succeed, even if the statement is defamatory. Truth is a complete defence to defamation.
Fair Comment
Under Section 9 of the Defamation Act, a person may rely on the defence of fair comment if the statement is an opinion rather than a statement of fact and meets the following conditions:
- The comment is based on facts;
- The comment is a matter of public interest; and
- The comment is one that a fair-minded person can honestly make on the facts proved.
In strata communities, issues such as management decisions, maintenance, and use of funds often fall under public interest. If a person makes a genuine and reasonable comment based on facts, they may be protected by this defence.
Qualified Privilege
The defence of qualified privilege applies when a statement is made by someone who has a legal, social, or moral duty to communicate the information, and the recipient has a corresponding interest in receiving it.
In strata communities, the defence of qualified privilege can be invoked when a complaint is lodged through appropriate channels, such as comments expressed in an annual general meeting, as long as there is an absence of malice.
The Effect of Malice
For defences like qualified privilege and fair comment to succeed, the statements must be made in good faith. If there is evidence of malice, such as an intent to harm, exaggerate, or mislead, these defences may fail.
In Agacia Land Sdn Bhd v Hiew Kok Jun & Ors [2019] 1 LNS 1570, unit owners accused the developer of mismanagement in letters sent to relevant authorities. While the court recognised the importance of transparency and accepted that the letters were a matter of public interest, the defence of qualified privilege ultimately failed because the statements were made maliciously.
Similarly, in Tan Sri David Chiu Tat Cheong v Seema Elizabeth Soy [2023] 6 CLJ 51, the court found that the defendant acted with malice by withholding key facts. The defendant had accused the plaintiff of financial misconduct but deliberately omitted the fact that the plaintiff had been cleared of those allegations over 20 years earlier. This omission was enough to defeat the defence of qualified privilege.
Republishing a Defamatory Statement
In strata communities, it is common for owners and residents to share updates, complaints, or opinions through messaging platforms and social media. However, if these messages contain defamatory content, simply forwarding or reposting them can have serious legal consequences. Under our defamation law, each act of republishing a defamatory statement, whether on WhatsApp, Facebook, or in group chats, is treated as a separate publication. This means individuals who share such content may be exposed to defamation claims, even if they are not the original author. It is therefore important to verify the accuracy and intent of any message before sharing it further.
In Raja Syahrir bin Abu Bakar & Anor v Manjeet Singh Dhillon [2020] 3 MLJ 482, the Court of Appeal affirmed that republication of defamatory statements can attract liability where the republishers adopt and affirm the defamatory content as their own.
Tips to Avoid Defamation
Understanding the legal defences to defamation is important, but preventing disputes in the first place is even better. In strata communities, clear and responsible communication can go a long way in avoiding misunderstandings and potential claims. The tips below offer practical guidance to help reduce the risk of defamation in everyday interactions.
- Use careful and neutral language: Avoid emotionally charged or accusatory words. Clear, respectful language helps prevent misunderstandings and keeps discussions focused on solutions
- Exercise discretion in negative statements: Think carefully before making remarks that could reflect others poorly. Unnecessary criticism can escalate tensions and lead to legal risk.
- Present statements as opinions, not facts: When sharing your views, make it clear they are personal opinions, not absolute truths. This helps reduce the risk of defamation, especially when the facts are uncertain or open to interpretation.
- Base statements on evidence: Limit your statements to what can be supported by evidence. This approach reduces the potential for misinformation.
- Refrain from derogatory language and name-calling: Maintain a respectful tone by avoiding using derogatory terms or engaging in name-calling.
- Apologise when mistakes are made: A prompt and sincere apology can help resolve issues early and shows accountability, reducing the likelihood of escalation or legal action.
- Use the ‘bane and antidote’ approach selectively: Balance criticism with praise and solutions. When offering negative feedback, pair it with a positive observation or a constructive suggestion. For example, if raising concerns about delayed repairs, acknowledge what has been done well or express appreciation for ongoing efforts, while also suggesting a way forward. This approach helps keep conversations respectful and solution-oriented, but should be used thoughtfully to avoid sounding overly critical.
Conclusion
Clear and respectful communication is essential to managing a well-functioning strata community. With frequent discussions around sensitive matters such as by-law compliance, maintenance, and financial obligations, stakeholders must understand how defamation law applies in these settings. A solid grasp of defamation principles helps developers, property managers, committee members, and residents avoid legal risks while expressing concerns responsibly.
Preventing defamation issues requires a proactive approach. By expressing opinions clearly, sticking to facts, avoiding inflammatory language, and addressing mistakes openly, individuals can reduce the risk of defamation claims. These habits not only minimise legal exposure but also support a culture of accountability, transparency, and mutual respect within the community.
By Raymond Mah, Edwin Raj and Kirbasyini Chandran
Note: This article does not constitute legal advice to any specific case. The facts and circumstances of each and every case will differ and therefore will require specific legal advice. Feel free to contact us for complimentary legal consultation.
