Defamation
18 cases · February 2021 to April 2026
Case Volume by Year
1 21
5 24
5 25
7 26
2021–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Housing development dispute — WhatsApp and Facebook publications by purchaser — Distinction between legitimate consumer complaints and allegations of corruption or improper influence — Whether “ada cable ngan KPKT” and reference to SPRM defamatory — Defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege — General damages awarded; counterclaim dismissed. 1 Facebook publications — City councillor and politician accused of failing to assist underage prostitution victim — Sessions Court found statements defamatory but upheld justification and fair comment — Appeal allowed. 1 Advocate and solicitor — Letter to insurer — Whether statements defamatory — Professional reputation — Solicitor-client relationship — Termination of retainer — Change of solicitors — Authority to act — Filing of proceedings after termination — Communication to insurer — Whether publication justified. 1 Defences — Justification — Substantial truth — Burden of proof — Whether truth capable of summary determination — Requirement to prove defamatory sting — Pleading requirements — Whether reliance on statutory and ethical breaches properly pleaded. 1 Defences — Qualified privilege — Duty-interest communication — Corresponding interest of insurer — Scope of privilege — Whether publication exceeded occasion — Malice — Whether inferred from content and purpose of communication — Whether triable issue of malice. 1 Assessment of damages — Interlocutory judgment in default of defence — Facebook publications — Social media defamation — Online publication — Liability of group administrator — Control and notice of defamatory content — Continued availability of defamatory posts — Injury to reputation — Injury to feelings and dignity — Extent of publication — Public Facebook group — Large online audience — Evidence of digital publications — Screenshots — Admissibility of electronic evidence — Evidence Act 1950 ss 90A–90C — General damages — Aggravated damages — Absence of apology — Failure to respond to letters of demand — Defendant’s non-appearance — Vindication of reputation — Principles governing quantum of damages in defamation — No proof of special damage — Injunctive relief — Order for apology — Interest on damages — Costs of assessment. 1 Libel — Anonymous digital “poison pen” letter — Dissemination via email and WhatsApp — Whether respondent responsible for publication EVIDENCE — Presumption of fact — Evidence Act 1950, s 114A(3) — Meaning of “originates from” — Custody or control of computer at material time — Rebuttal of presumption DIGITAL EVIDENCE — Metadata — Evidential weight — Failure to identify particular device — Circumstantial evidence insufficient APPEAL — No basis for appellate interference — Appeal dismissed with costs 1 Plaintiff’s standing — Applicability of Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd to individual plaintiffs; whether public figure barred from suing. Defamatory meaning — Whether statements alleging religious subversion and national betrayal lower plaintiff in estimation of right-thinking members of society. Reference — Whether indirect or collective references (“MEREKA”) reasonably identify plaintiff. Publication — Whether speech at public university forum constitutes publication to third parties. Defences — Justification (truth), fair comment on matters of public interest, qualified privilege in public discourse. 1 Transfer of proceedings from High Court to Sessions Court — Current trend for award of damages in defamation 1 Publication — Online messaging platforms — Telegram groups — Identity of publisher — Whether Plaintiffs proved that Telegram account belonged to Defendant — Section 114A Evidence Act 1950 — Rebuttable presumption as to online publisher — Absence of service-provider confirmation — Burden of proof on plaintiff — Default judgment set aside — Takaful agency — Alleged withholding of commission — Second set of words by other users — Special damages — Causation and proof of loss — Claim dismissed 1 Online publication — Allegation of breach of Movement Control Order — Use of outdated photograph — Juxtaposition creating misleading defamatory meaning — Reasonable reader test Defamation — Media law — Responsible journalism — Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd — Failure to verify facts and seek response — Defence of qualified privilege not established Defamation — Neutral reportage — Claim of “asking for verification” — Verification only after publication — Effect limited to mitigation of damages Defamation — Malice — Reckless disregard for truth — Misleading use of photograph — Legal malice inferred Civil procedure — Pleadings — Order 92 r 1 Rules of Court 2012 — Minor language irregularity — Curable defect — Order 1 r 8 applied Appeal — Error of law and fact — Appeal allowed — Sessions Court decision set aside 1 political speech — public figure — whether statements made during campaign are defamatory — whether statements refer to plaintiff — whether statements published — whether statements lower plaintiff’s reputation — use of term “pencuri” — criminal innuendo — governance vs criminal liability — defence of justification — defence of fair comment — whether statements based on false facts — role of Menteri Besar Incorporated (MBI) — compound letter validity — Dewan Bahasa definition — impact of media dissemination — Federal Constitution — Auditor-General Report — MARRIS fund mismanagement — rare earth elements (REE) controversy — application of Raub Australian Gold Mining v Hue Shieh Lee — application of Seema Elizabeth Isoy v Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong — Defamation Act 1957 — section 8 — whether defence of justification negated by malice 1 businessman called a conman but particulars of reach and extent of influence of the businessman not given — particulars for general, exemplary and aggravated damages being overlapping save for the addition of elements of vindictiveness and malice — rolled- up award of RM250,000.00 awarded 1 an offending article presented as a joint paper will amount to a publication of the defamatory comments by the party who allow itself to be held out as the joint presenter of the offending article if it has not taken any steps to dissociate itself from the said publication Defamation — a society which is a non-political party may be sued for defamation 1 Public officials — Freedom of speech — Constitutional rights 1 The appellant brought an action against the respondents in relation to publication of statements which are said to be defamatory against the appellant — Whether the offending statements were defamatory — The respondents denied that the impugned statements were defamatory of the appellant and raised the defence of justification, fair comment and defence of reportage 1 Speech delivered by the defendant at a ceramah — Whether the impugned words are defamatory — Whether the defendant caused the republication of the impugned words — Whether the defendant can rely on the defences of justification, fair comment, privilege, innocent dissemination — Whether the defendant was actuated by malice. 1 Statements made by the defendant at a press conference — Omissions from the statements as pleaded in the statement of claim — Whether the statements are defamatory — Whether the defendant can rely on the defences of justification, fair comment, qualified privilege — Whether the defendant was actuated by malice. 1 After a full trial, the JC found the impugned email to be defamatory of the Plaintiff and rejected the defences of justification and qualified privilege. Thus, the JC allowed the Plaintiff’s claim and ordered the Defendants to pay RM300,000.00 as general damages (including aggravated and exemplary damages) with interest at 5% per annum from the date of filing of the Writ until full settlement, and an injunction restraining the Defendants (or their agents) from repeating or publishing the said libellous statements of and concerning the Plaintiff or words of like or similar effect — in Appeal 2197, the Plaintiff is appealing against the inadequacy of the damages — In Appeal 2112 the Defendants are appealing against the JC’s finding of liability that they had defamed the Plaintiff and in rejecting the defences of justification and qualified privilege. The Defendants have also appealed against the quantum of damages — claim not proven — appeal allowed 1
Housing development dispute — WhatsApp and Facebook publications by purchaser — Distinction between legitimate consumer complaints and allegations of corruption or improper influence — Whether “ada cable ngan KPKT” and reference to SPRM defamatory — Defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege — General damages awarded; counterclaim dismissed. 1 case
Facebook publications — City councillor and politician accused of failing to assist underage prostitution victim — Sessions Court found statements defamatory but upheld justification and fair comment — Appeal allowed. 1 case
Defences — Justification — Substantial truth — Burden of proof — Whether truth capable of summary determination — Requirement to prove defamatory sting — Pleading requirements — Whether reliance on statutory and ethical breaches properly pleaded. 1 case
Defences — Qualified privilege — Duty-interest communication — Corresponding interest of insurer — Scope of privilege — Whether publication exceeded occasion — Malice — Whether inferred from content and purpose of communication — Whether triable issue of malice. 1 case
Libel — Anonymous digital “poison pen” letter — Dissemination via email and WhatsApp — Whether respondent responsible for publication EVIDENCE — Presumption of fact — Evidence Act 1950, s 114A(3) — Meaning of “originates from” — Custody or control of computer at material time — Rebuttal of presumption DIGITAL EVIDENCE — Metadata — Evidential weight — Failure to identify particular device — Circumstantial evidence insufficient APPEAL — No basis for appellate interference — Appeal dismissed with costs 1 case
Plaintiff’s standing — Applicability of Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd to individual plaintiffs; whether public figure barred from suing. Defamatory meaning — Whether statements alleging religious subversion and national betrayal lower plaintiff in estimation of right-thinking members of society. Reference — Whether indirect or collective references (“MEREKA”) reasonably identify plaintiff. Publication — Whether speech at public university forum constitutes publication to third parties. Defences — Justification (truth), fair comment on matters of public interest, qualified privilege in public discourse. 1 case
Transfer of proceedings from High Court to Sessions Court — Current trend for award of damages in defamation 1 case
Publication — Online messaging platforms — Telegram groups — Identity of publisher — Whether Plaintiffs proved that Telegram account belonged to Defendant — Section 114A Evidence Act 1950 — Rebuttable presumption as to online publisher — Absence of service-provider confirmation — Burden of proof on plaintiff — Default judgment set aside — Takaful agency — Alleged withholding of commission — Second set of words by other users — Special damages — Causation and proof of loss — Claim dismissed 1 case
Online publication — Allegation of breach of Movement Control Order — Use of outdated photograph — Juxtaposition creating misleading defamatory meaning — Reasonable reader test Defamation — Media law — Responsible journalism — Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd — Failure to verify facts and seek response — Defence of qualified privilege not established Defamation — Neutral reportage — Claim of “asking for verification” — Verification only after publication — Effect limited to mitigation of damages Defamation — Malice — Reckless disregard for truth — Misleading use of photograph — Legal malice inferred Civil procedure — Pleadings — Order 92 r 1 Rules of Court 2012 — Minor language irregularity — Curable defect — Order 1 r 8 applied Appeal — Error of law and fact — Appeal allowed — Sessions Court decision set aside 1 case
political speech — public figure — whether statements made during campaign are defamatory — whether statements refer to plaintiff — whether statements published — whether statements lower plaintiff’s reputation — use of term “pencuri” — criminal innuendo — governance vs criminal liability — defence of justification — defence of fair comment — whether statements based on false facts — role of Menteri Besar Incorporated (MBI) — compound letter validity — Dewan Bahasa definition — impact of media dissemination — Federal Constitution — Auditor-General Report — MARRIS fund mismanagement — rare earth elements (REE) controversy — application of Raub Australian Gold Mining v Hue Shieh Lee — application of Seema Elizabeth Isoy v Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong — Defamation Act 1957 — section 8 — whether defence of justification negated by malice 1 case
businessman called a conman but particulars of reach and extent of influence of the businessman not given — particulars for general, exemplary and aggravated damages being overlapping save for the addition of elements of vindictiveness and malice — rolled- up award of RM250,000.00 awarded 1 case
an offending article presented as a joint paper will amount to a publication of the defamatory comments by the party who allow itself to be held out as the joint presenter of the offending article if it has not taken any steps to dissociate itself from the said publication Defamation — a society which is a non-political party may be sued for defamation 1 case
Public officials — Freedom of speech — Constitutional rights 1 case
The appellant brought an action against the respondents in relation to publication of statements which are said to be defamatory against the appellant — Whether the offending statements were defamatory — The respondents denied that the impugned statements were defamatory of the appellant and raised the defence of justification, fair comment and defence of reportage 1 case
Speech delivered by the defendant at a ceramah — Whether the impugned words are defamatory — Whether the defendant caused the republication of the impugned words — Whether the defendant can rely on the defences of justification, fair comment, privilege, innocent dissemination — Whether the defendant was actuated by malice. 1 case
Statements made by the defendant at a press conference — Omissions from the statements as pleaded in the statement of claim — Whether the statements are defamatory — Whether the defendant can rely on the defences of justification, fair comment, qualified privilege — Whether the defendant was actuated by malice. 1 case
After a full trial, the JC found the impugned email to be defamatory of the Plaintiff and rejected the defences of justification and qualified privilege. Thus, the JC allowed the Plaintiff’s claim and ordered the Defendants to pay RM300,000.00 as general damages (including aggravated and exemplary damages) with interest at 5% per annum from the date of filing of the Writ until full settlement, and an injunction restraining the Defendants (or their agents) from repeating or publishing the said libellous statements of and concerning the Plaintiff or words of like or similar effect — in Appeal 2197, the Plaintiff is appealing against the inadequacy of the damages — In Appeal 2112 the Defendants are appealing against the JC’s finding of liability that they had defamed the Plaintiff and in rejecting the defences of justification and qualified privilege. The Defendants have also appealed against the quantum of damages — claim not proven — appeal allowed 1 case
Key Statutes
Rules of Court 2012
cited in 5 cases Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 4 cases Defamation Act 1957
cited in 2 cases Federal Constitution
cited in 2 cases National Land Code (Cap 828)
cited in 1 case Societies Act 1966
cited in 1 case Communications and Multimedia Act 1998
cited in 1 case Road Transport Act 1987 (Cap 333)
cited in 1 case Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Choo Kah Sing 3 Noradura binti Hamzah 2 Shahnaz binti Sulaiman 2 Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan 2 Quay Chew Soon 2 Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal 1 Mohd Zawawi bin Salleh 1 Hasnah Dato' Mohammed Hashim 1 Asmah binti Musa 1 Seow Hock Peng 1 John Lee Kien How @ Mohammad Johan Lee 1 Azimah binti Omar 1 Supang Lian 1 Su Tiang Joo 1 Samry bin Masri 1
Top Firms
Zulpadli & Edham 1 C H Yeoh & Yiew 1 Firoz Julian 1 JW Yeoh & Fenn 1 Bharathi & Associates 1 Amalia Rose Masuri The Law Office 1 Wei Jit 1 Azam Aziz & Co 1 Ramesh Dipendra Jeremiah Law 1 Kuruvilla, Yeoh & Benjamin 1 Ang & Co. 1 Tan Choon Hong & Associates 1 Lim Kian Leong & Co 1 Subramaniam & Shafiq 1 Raja Riza & Associates 1
Top Lawyers
Abdullah Az-Zubayr b. Awaluddin 1 Yiew Voon Lee 1 Choo Shi Jin 1 Yeoh Jit Wei 1 Bharathi a/p Sinnathamby 1 Amalia Marsita binti Hamdan 1 Nevyn Vinosh Venudran 1 Dato' Ambiga Sreenevasan 1 Razlan Hadri bin Zulkifli 1 Sangeet Kaur Deo d/o Karpal Singh 1 Lim Wei Jit 1 Lee Guo Wen 1 Harshaan Zamani 1 Mohd Khairul Azam bin Abdul Aziz 1 Nur Jehan bt Abu Bakar 1
Cases
ca-23ncvc-3-08-2021
MELIMA ASSETS SDN BHD v MUHAMAD ARIFPIN BIN MANSOR
27 April 2026
MYHC
ja-12b-75-11-2025
CHAN SAN SAN v LIM THOW SIANG
20 April 2026
MYHC
ma-23ncvc-3-03-2025
KHAREN JIT KAUR A/P LA CHIN SINGH v 1. ) NUURUL 'AZMI BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN 2. ) FAZNITA BINTI MOHD SALLEH
2 April 2026
MYHC
ma-23cy-3-10-2024
Tan Chun Hoe v Bong Pek Jun
25 March 2026
MYHC
w-02w-1130-07-2023
SUNDRA RAJOO A/L NADARAJAH v Leaderonomics Sdn Bhd
22 February 2026
MYCOA
w-02ncvcw-2301-12-2024
YEOH TSEOW SUAN v MUSA BIN HAJI HASSAN
12 January 2026
MYCOA
ba-23cy-19-08-2025
1. ) CHER GUAN CHUN 2. ) CHER INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD v LIM CHAN HON
4 January 2026
MYHC
ja-23ncvc-15-10-2022
1. ) FNC CORPORATE PLT 2. ) FIRDAUS AMMAMI BIN FAUZEE v EZHAM BIN ABD WAHID
10 December 2025
MYHC
ba-12bcy-2-02-2025
MOHD KHAIRUDDIN BIN AMAN RAZALI v SIN CHEW MEDIA CORPORATION BHD
26 October 2025
MYHC
ka-23cy-1-08-2023
DATO' SERI MUHAMMAD SANUSI BIN MD NOR v DATUK SERI SAIFUDDIN NASUTION BIN ISMAIL
23 August 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncvc-237-05-2017
XXXX v 1. ) Foo Yong 2. ) Loke Kok Kuen 3. ) Ong Tiong Tjuan (D3 In Counter Claim)
13 January 2025
MYHC
wa-23cy-61-10-2021
SUNDRA RAJOO A/L NADARAJAH v THIRILOGACHANDRAN @ JAYASANGAR A/L SHANMUGASUNDARAM (Disaman atas kapasiti perwakilannya bagi pihak pertubuhan yang berdaftar PERTUBUHAN AKITEK MALAYSIA sebagai Setiausaha Kehormatnya menurut Seksyen 9(c) Akta Pertubuhan 1966)
9 January 2025
MYHC
wa-23ncvc-36-05-2021
YEOH TSEOW SUAN v MUSA BIN HAJI HASSAN
22 December 2024
MYHC
p-02ncvcw-1085-07-2023
LIM GUAN ENG v 1. ) DATUK TAN TEIK CHENG 2. ) STAR MEDIA GROUP BERHAD
5 December 2024
MYCOA
pa-23cy-3-11-2023
TAN SRI LIM KIT SIANG v YB DR. SITI MASTURA BINTI MUHAMMAD
3 December 2024
MYHC
pa-23ncvc-3-01-2024
TAN SRI DATO' SERI TAN KOK PING v CHOW KON YEOW
25 November 2024
MYHC
p-02ncvcw-2112-11-2022
1. ) FRANCES JOYCELYN NATHAN 2. ) JAYAPRAGASH AMBLAVANAR 3. ) ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD v Siva Subramaniam A/l M. Shanmugam (Menyaman Sebagai Seorang Pemilik Tunggal Yang Beramal Di Bawah Nama Dan Gaya Subramaniam & Shafiq, Sebuah Firma Peguambela & Peguamcara)
10 November 2024
MYCOA
kes-02f-17-04-2018w
Dato' Sri Dr. Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail National Feedlot Corporation Sdn. Bhd. v Nurul Izzah binti Anwar Saifuddin Nasution(Disaman Sebagai Setiausaha Agong, Parti Keadilan Rakyat)
28 February 2021
MYFC