30 June 2023

Defamation: Syed v. Malik

 

With their business relationship in tatters, Amir Malik took revenge online in what he called a ‘public awareness’ campaign about the behaviour of former associate Zainulabidin Syed.  He was ordered to pay $225,000 damages for defamation.

The two met in 2005, later becoming jointly involved in property investment.  Mr Syed came with nearly thirty years experience in Australia as a property developer.  By 2009, Mr Malik and family were living rent free at a property in Auckland owned by Mr Syed with Mr Malik working as a project manager on Syed projects.  Six years later, their business relationship fell apart.

The High Court was told Mr Syed had become aware of Mr Malik profiting through use of a separate company, contracted to work on projects.  Their relationship deteriorated further when Mr Malik then claimed to be in partnership, demanding an equity interest in one of the Syed developments.

Mr Malik was evicted from his rent-free accommodation.  He launched what the High Court described as a smear campaign against Mr Syed.

Evidence was given of group emails, Facebook posts and Urdu-voiced video clips which variously described Mr Syed as being involved in fraud, perjury, money-laundering and tax evasion.  Mr Syed was accused of having misused funds provided for construction of a mosque.  Mr Syed said this led to him being spurned by members of the Muslim community in Australia and contributed towards failure of his building company, Halal Homes.

Mr Malik justified his campaign as a public service, warning others who might have dealings with Mr Syed.  He provided no evidence to support his allegations.        

In August 2018, Justice Churchman ruled twenty separate published items were defamatory.  Mr Syed was told to reformulate his claim for $10.9 million damages, primarily losses claimed from the failure of Halal Homes.

Following a subsequent damages hearing, Justice Isac ordered payment of $225,000 damages as compensation for Mr Syed.  Mr Malik’s defamatory comments were described as an attack on every aspect of Mr Syed’s life: his family, faith and business. Mr Malik’s wife Trinity Wilson was held jointly liable on $150,000 of this $225,000.  She had assisted in promulgating the defamatory comments, Justice Isac ruled.

Mr Syed received adverse media publicity in 2018 with allegations he was exploiting government funding as an emergency housing provider.

Syed v. Malik – High Court (30.06.23)

23.105