1. ) DATO' K. KUMARAENDRAN 2. ) DEVKUMAR A/L K. KUMARAENDRAN v 1. ) ALBERT A/L ANTONI TASS 2. ) Selvaraja Namchivayam

pa-22ncvc-180-11-2021 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 11 August 2025 • PA-22NCvC-180-11/2021 • 27 min read
43 cases cited (0 SG, 43 foreign)

Catchwords

1. The Plaintiffs are lawyers. The First Plaintiff is Dato’ Seri Kumaraendran (DS Kumar). DS Kumar and the Second Plaintiff (Dev) are partners in their law firm. 2. One of their clients is Dr N. Jeganathan (Dr Jega). Dr Jega sued the Second Defendant (D2) in a debt recovery suit. 3. D2’s lawyer was the First Defendant (Albert). Albert was the sole proprietor of his law firm. Albert acted for D2 in Dr Jega’s suit against D2. 4. In the course of communication between them, Albert issued a letter dated 23.8.2021 to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs assert that the content (the words) of the letter has defamed them. They sued Albert and D2 for libel (for the words in the letter). 5. Albert has since passed away. The Plaintiffs discontinued their suit against Albert. But they continued their suit against D2. 6. Is D2 liable to the Plaintiffs for libel? Or does D2 have a defence that absolves him?

Judges (1)

Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James Delivered

Parties (4)

Albert a/l Antoni Tass Defendant Dato' K. Kumaraendran Plaintiff Devkumar a/l K. Kumaraendran Plaintiff Selvaraja Namchivayam Defendant

Case Significance

1. ) DATO' K. KUMARAENDRAN 2. ) DEVKUMAR A/L K. KUMARAENDRAN v 1. ) ALBERT A/... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated August 11, 2025 (citation: pa-22ncvc-180-11-2021). The case was decided by Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James.

What was the outcome of 1. ) DATO' K. KUMARAENDRAN 2. ) DEVKUMAR A/L K. KUMARAENDRAN v 1. ) ALBERT A/...?

1. ) DATO' K. KUMARAENDRAN 2. ) DEVKUMAR A/L K. KUMARAENDRAN v 1. ) ALBERT A/... is a High Court decision dated August 11, 2025. The case was heard by Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James. See the full judgment for details.

Statutes Cited

Defamation Act 1957
s 7
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (43)

UK (1)
[1996] 2 All ER 35
MY (42)
[1973] 1 MLRH 153 [1973] 2 MLJ 56 [1988] 1 MLRH 653 [1989] 1 CLJ 152 [1989] 1 MLJ 315 [1996] 1 MLJ 393 [1999] 1 AMR 753 [1999] 1 CLJ 461 [1999] 1 MLJ 371 [2000] 2 AMR 1278 [2000] 2 MLRH 33 [2000] 5 CLJ 435 [2000] 5 MLJ 465 [2001] 2 AMR 2320 [2001] 2 CLJ 385 [2005] 2 CLJ 569 [2005] 3 AMR 1 [2005] 3 AMR 189 [2005] 3 MLJ 485 [2005] 3 MLJ 494 [2017] AMEJ 1321 [2018] 1 MLJ 784 [2018] 3 CLJ 726 [2018] 4 AMR 321 [2018] 4 AMR 745 [2018] 5 MLJ 711 [2018] 6 CLJ 1 [2018] 6 MLJ 396 [2018] 8 AMR 558 [2018] MLJU 2101 [2019] 1 MLJ 580 [2019] 2 AMR 525 [2019] 2 CLJ 631 [2019] 3 CLJ 729 [2019] 3 MLJ 720 [2019] 4 MLJ 259 [2019] MLJU 100 [2021] 2 MLJ 514 [2021] 4 CLJ 155 [2021] AMEJ 0190 [2024] 3 MLJ 937 [2024] 4 CLJ 657

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (pa-22ncvc-180-11-2021)