Successful Defence of Court-Appointed Auctioneer in Defamation Claim
On 4 February 2026, We, JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors successfully defended a court-appointed auctioneer at the Penang High Court, where the Appellant’s appeal was dismissed in its entirety following a full appeal after trial. Our Ko Jie Yang and Ms. Chang Lai Ling attended for our Client (Respondent/Defendant).
The appeal arose from a defamation suit commenced by the Appellant (Plaintiff at first instance) in the Butterworth Sessions Court, where our client had been sued for allegedly defaming the Appellant by posting a Proclamation of Sale at the Appellant’s premises.
Background of the Case
The Appellant alleged that the posting of the Proclamation of Sale was defamatory because the loan in question had been settled a few days prior to the posting.
Despite this, no withdrawal, suspension, or stay of the auction proceedings had been communicated or recorded at the material time. The Proclamation of Sale was posted strictly pursuant to a valid and subsisting court order.
Our Legal Strategy and Arguments
Representing the Respondent (Defendant), we advanced several key arguments that ultimately persuaded the High Court to dismiss the appeal.
1. Court-Appointed Auctioneer Acting Under Judicial Authority
Our client was a licensed auctioneer appointed pursuant to a court order, acting strictly within the scope of that order. As an officer of the court, the auctioneer was duty-bound to carry out the court’s instructions unless and until the order was withdrawn or suspended.
At the material time:
- The auction order remained valid
- No notice of settlement or suspension had been issued
- No court directive prohibited the posting of the Proclamation of Sale
2. Protection Under Judicial Immunity
We successfully argued that our client was entitled to judicial immunity under section 14 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
The provision protects officers of the court who act in good faith in the execution of judicial functions. Our client’s actions were:
- Procedural, not discretionary
- Performed pursuant to a court mandate
- Carried out without malice or improper motive
Accordingly, the claim in defamation was legally unsustainable.
3. Proclamation of Sale Is Not Defamatory
We further submitted that the Proclamation of Sale itself did not constitute a defamatory statement.
At the time it was posted:
- The court order for auction was valid
- The auction proceedings had not been withdrawn
- The Proclamation accurately reflected the legal position as it stood at that moment
Defamation law does not penalise statements that are true at the time they are made, nor does it impose liability on officers carrying out lawful judicial processes.
High Court’s Decision
After considering the record of appeal and the submissions of parties, the High Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal, affirming that:
- The Respondent was protected by judicial immunity
- The posting of the Proclamation of Sale was lawful
- No defamation had been established
This decision reinforces the legal protection afforded to court-appointed auctioneers and officers of the court acting in accordance with judicial orders.
Our Firm’s Experience
JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors regularly acts in:
- Defamation claims
- Auction-related disputes
- Appeals after trial
- Civil litigation involving court officers and statutory immunity
This case underscores our firm’s ability to defend complex litigation at both trial and appellate levels, particularly where public officers and judicial processes are involved.
Written on: 5th February 2026
Contact JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors to make an appointment today!
🌐 Call us: +6017.6965.966 (Call / WhatsApp)
📩 Email Us: nick@jykolaw.com
Or fill in the contact form CLICK HERE
Disclaimer: The above proposition is subject to actual facts and circumstances and shall never be referred as the actual law without seeking legal advice. Consult us for more information!