SUNDRA RAJOO A/L NADARAJAH v Leaderonomics Sdn Bhd

w-02w-1130-07-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 22 February 2026 • W-02(W)-1130-07/2023 • 28 min read

3 cases cited (0 SG, 3 foreign)

Catchwords

DEFAMATION – 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

Practice Areas

DEFAMATION

Judges (3)

Choo Kah Sing Delivered Shahnaz binti Sulaiman Coram Supang Lian Coram

Counsel (5)

Kuruvilla, Yeoh & Benjamin Firm Ramesh Dipendra Jeremiah Law Firm Edward Kuruvilla Counsel Appellant HR Dipendra Counsel Respondent Tong Joe Jye Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Leaderonomics Sdn Bhd Respondent Sundra Rajoo a/l Nadarajah Appellant

Case Significance

SUNDRA RAJOO A/L NADARAJAH v Leaderonomics Sdn Bhd is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated February 22, 2026 (citation: w-02w-1130-07-2023). <p>Sundra Rajoo sued Leaderonomics for defamation over an anonymous digital poison pen letter sent to MACC and widely circulated via email and WhatsApp. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove publication by the respondent, as the metadata showing 'Leaderonomics' as the document author only proved creation on a device with that username, not that publication originated from a device belonging to the respondent.</p> The panel comprised Choo Kah Sing, Shahnaz binti Sulaiman and Supang Lian, with Choo Kah Sing delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Edward Kuruvilla (counsel for appellant), HR Dipendra (counsel for respondent), Tong Joe Jye (counsel for respondent).

Summary

Sundra Rajoo sued Leaderonomics for defamation over an anonymous digital poison pen letter sent to MACC and widely circulated via email and WhatsApp. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove publication by the respondent, as the metadata showing 'Leaderonomics' as the document author only proved creation on a device with that username, not that publication originated from a device belonging to the respondent.

What was the outcome of SUNDRA RAJOO A/L NADARAJAH v Leaderonomics Sdn Bhd?

<p>Sundra Rajoo sued Leaderonomics for defamation over an anonymous digital poison pen letter sent to MACC and widely circulated via email and WhatsAp...

Statutes Cited

Communications and Multimedia Act 1998

s 6

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Cases Cited (3)

MY (3)

[2018] 3 MLJ 726 [2019] 3 CLJ 729 [2020] MLJU 132