LIM GUAN ENG v OH TONG KEONG
85 cases cited
(0 SG, 85 foreign)
Catchwords
1. The Defendant is a politician. He held a press conference. He invited the media to come to his press conference. He talked about the Plaintiff. P is a well-known politician. A press statement about the press conference was emailed out to various persons in the media. 2. A media journalist attended the press conference. She wrote an article about what D said at the press conference. It was published in both print and online forms. 3. P sued D and the media for libel, for the allegedly defamatory words and statements in the press statement and the media article. 4. Should P succeed in his cause for libel? In other words, does D and the meida have defences to P’s suits for defamation?
Judges (1)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
LIM GUAN ENG v OH TONG KEONG is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated May 6, 2025 (citation: pa-23ncvc-1-01-2021). The case was decided by Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James.
Key issues: 2. A media journalist attended the press conference. She wrote an article about what D said at the press conference. It was published in both print and online forms..
What was the outcome of LIM GUAN ENG v OH TONG KEONG?
LIM GUAN ENG v OH TONG KEONG is a High Court decision dated May 6, 2025. The case was heard by Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James. See the full judgment for details.
Statutes Cited
Defamation Act 1957
s 12(2) s 2 s 8
Evidence Act
s 114A
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
Rules of Court 2012
Societies Act 1966 (Cap 335)
Cases Cited (85)
UK (9)
[1917] AC 309 [1986] All ER 177 [1995] 4 All ER 609 [1997] 1 All ER 35 [1999] 4 All ER 342 [2000] UKHL 57 [2001] QB 201 [2008] 1 All ER 750 [2008] 2 WLR 129
MY (76)
[1973] 1 MLRH 153 [1973] 2 MLJ 56 [1978] 1 MLRH 681 [1979] 1 MLJ 281 [1988] 1 CLJ 771 [1988] 2 MLJ 173 [1989] 3 MLJ 1 [1995] 2 AMR 1776 [1995] 2 CLJ 912 [1995] 2 MLJ 493 [1995] 4 MLRH 877 [1996] 1 MLJ 393 [1999] 1 AMR 753 [1999] 1 CLJ 461 [1999] 1 MLJ 371 [2001] 2 AMR 2320 [2001] 2 CLJ 385 [2005] 2 CLJ 569 [2005] 2 CLJ 645 [2005] 3 AMR 1 [2005] 3 AMR 189 [2005] 3 MLJ 485 [2005] 3 MLJ 494 [2008] 3 MLRH 527 [2009] 1 AMR 317 [2009] 2 CLJ 682 [2009] 7 MLJ 371 [2014] 3 CLJ 560 [2014] 4 MLJ 242 [2015] 6 AMR 66 [2015] 6 MLJ 187 [2015] 8 CLJ 477 [2015] AMEJ 1234 [2015] AMEJ 624 [2015] MLJU 432 [2016] AMEJ 2227 [2017] 3 AMR 221 [2017] 4 CLJ 369 [2017] 6 MLJ 133 [2017] 6 MLRH 286 [2017] 6 MLRH 685 [2017] 7 AMR 317 [2017] 9 MLJ 622 [2017] MLJU 1898 [2018] 1 CLJ 145 [2018] 1 MLJ 784 [2018] 4 AMR 745 [2018] 8 AMR 558 [2019] 1 MLJ 580 [2019] 2 CLJ 631 [2019] 4 MLJ 259 [2021] 2 MLJ 514 [2021] 4 CLJ 155 [2021] 5 MLJ 79 [2021] 6 AMR 545 [2021] 7 CLJ 145 [2021] AMEJ 0200 [2022] 3 MLJ 758 [2022] 4 AMR 695 [2022] 4 AMR 753 [2022] 4 MLJ 454 [2022] 5 CLJ 487 [2022] 5 CLJ 847 [2022] AMEJ 0538 [2022] MLJU 1052 [2023] AMEJ 1829 [2023] MLJU 1983 [2024] 1 MLRH 217 [2024] AMEJ 0286 [2024] AMEJ 3097 [2024] MLJU 268 [2024] MLJU 2904 [2024] MLJU 3687 [2025] 1 MLRH 589 [2025] 3 CLJ 231 [2025] 3 MLRH 52
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (pa-23ncvc-1-01-2021)