1. ) BUMI SURIA SDN BHD 2. ) DATUK SERI FARHASH WAFA SALVADOR 3. ) DATUK MOHD AMINUDIN BIN MUSTAPHA v 1. ) MNOW MEDIA SDN BHD 2. ) MUHAMMAD ABD AR-RAHMAN KOYA

Case Significance

Illustrates the caution courts exercise before restraining allegedly defamatory publication by interim injunction, refusing relief where the truth of the allegations is for trial and a defence of justification is foreshadowed.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application for an interim injunction to restrain the further publication of allegedly defamatory articles pending trial. The plaintiffs, a company engaged in coal mining and agglomeration together with two of its directors, sought to restrain the defendants, the operator of an online news portal and its editor, sole director and shareholder, from further publishing or making statements against them until the final disposal of the action. The court considered whether the plaintiffs had met the threshold requirements for the grant of an interim injunction in a defamation case, where the courts are cautious about restraining publication in advance of trial. It held that they had not. At this preliminary stage the court was not in a position to decide the truth or untruth of the allegations, or even whether the articles were unarguably defamatory, since the narratives did not appear obviously untruthful. It found that the articles had not been posted out of thin air or shown to be published out of bad intention or malice, and that there was documentary evidence to support the narrative, so that even if the material had been wrongly construed or understood, there was a basis for it. The court emphasised that it was not hearing the matter summarily but was concerned only with whether an injunction was proper to maintain the status quo pending the disposal of the action, and that the central issue, including the extent to which the statements were false, went to the defence of justification to be explored at trial. Concluding that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the threshold, the court dismissed the application with costs. The judgment is a useful illustration of the caution the courts exercise before restraining allegedly defamatory publication by interim injunction where a defence of justification is foreshadowed.