PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has cleared the government of liability in a negligence suit brought by a movie distributor after national broadcaster Radio Televisyen Malaysia (RTM) aired the blockbuster Hindi movie Boss eight years ago.
Justice Evrol Mariette Peters said Supreme Broadcast International Sdn Bhd had presented no evidence to prove a US$30,000 loss.
“It simply claimed back its historic cost, which is not a recognised measure of damages in the tort of negligence,” she said as a three-member bench allowed the government’s appeal to set aside a High Court ruling.
Justice Zaini Mazlan, who chaired the bench, and Justice Alwi Abdul Wahab also heard the appeal.
Peters, delivering the broad grounds of judgment, said that no proper assessment of damages had been conducted.
The court awarded the government RM50,000 in costs, saying it could not be held vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of RTM.
Senior federal counsel Siti Aishah Ramlan and federal counsel Nuur Zul Izzati Zulkipli represented the government, while lawyers Ravinder Singh Sodhi and DC Chan represented Supreme Broadcast.
Supreme Broadcast entered a five-year agreement in 2013 with a Dubai-based company, securing the rights to distribute the movie in Malaysia and Brunei for US$30,000.
RTM, in its defence, argued that the company never dealt with it regarding the acquisition of the movie and had provided no notice that would have triggered a duty of care.
Then director-general of the broadcasting department, Abu Bakar Ab Rahim, testified that RTM had entered into a contract with Film Station Production Sdn Bhd for the broadcasting rights, and the film aired on Aug 28, 2018, at 10pm on RTM2.
No duty of care established
Supreme Broadcast claimed it had sent a notice to RTM asserting its exclusive distribution rights and that the broadcaster breached a duty of care by failing to verify the claim.
The High Court accepted this argument, finding that the notice had been proven and, along with past dealings between the parties, established a duty of care which was breached.
“We unanimously disagree. In our view, the respondent failed at the very first hurdle. The fact that the respondent may have sold film rights to RTM in the past does not, without more, create a proximate relationship concerning every other film in the market,” Peters said.
She added that the notice, even if received by RTM, did not by itself create a duty of care.
“In the absence of a duty of care, the question of breach and damages does not arise,” she said.
In any event, Peters said, RTM broadcast the film pursuant to a valid contract with Film Station.
