1. ) BESTINET SDN BHD 2. ) DATO SRI AMINUL ISLAM BIN ABDUL NOR v 1. ) BLOOMBERG LP 2. ) BLOOMBERG (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 3. ) THE EDGE COMMUNICATIONS SDN BHD 4. ) MNOW MEDIA SDN BHD 5. ) MKINI DOTCOM SDN BHD 6. ) NORHAFIZAN BIN MUHAMAD BERNIAGA SEBAGAI HARAPAN MEDIA ENTERPRISE PERKONGSIAN (NO PENDAFTARAN PERNIAGAAN 202303316441 (NS0291341-M)) 7. ) MOHD NUR AZWAN BIN NUSI BERNIAGA SEBAGAI HARAPAN MEDIA ENTERPRISE PERKONGSIAN (NO. PENDAFTARAN PERNIAGAAN 202303316441 (NS0291341-M)) 8. ) LATHEEFA BEE...

Case Significance

Illustrates judicial caution toward pre-trial restraint of allegedly defamatory publication: an ex parte interim injunction sought by a corporate and individual plaintiff against a group of media defendants was dismissed, leaving the defamation claim to proceed without silencing the impugned publications pending trial.

This High Court decision concerns an ex parte application for an interim injunction in a defamation claim, brought by Bestinet Sdn Bhd together with an individual co-plaintiff (a natural person referred to here by role) against a group of media and publishing defendants that included Bloomberg LP, Bloomberg (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, The Edge Communications Sdn Bhd, MNOW Media Sdn Bhd and Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd, among others. The plaintiffs sought, on a “permohonan injuksi interim secara ex-parte” (an ex parte application for an interim injunction), to restrain the first to tenth defendants in respect of the publications complained of in the “tuntutan fitnah” (defamation claim).

The application engaged the well-recognised caution with which the courts approach interim injunctions that would restrain allegedly defamatory publication before trial. An order of that kind operates as a prior restraint on speech, and it is granted only sparingly — particularly on an ex parte basis, where the responding parties have not been heard and where a defendant may intend to justify the words as true or to rely on another recognised defence. The tension is between protecting a plaintiff's reputation from ongoing harm and preserving the freedom to publish on matters that may be of public interest, with the general rule weighing heavily against restraining publication in advance of a full hearing.

On this occasion the court declined to grant the relief sought: the “permohonan ditolak” (the application was dismissed). The plaintiffs were therefore left to pursue their defamation claim in the ordinary way, without an interim order silencing the impugned publications pending trial.

The judgment is a practical illustration of the reluctance of Malaysian courts to grant pre-trial injunctions restraining publication in defamation cases, especially where the application is made ex parte against multiple media defendants. The corporate plaintiff is named as it is a company; the individual co-plaintiff is referred to by role only.