Defamation
144 cases · August 2017 to May 2026
Overview
Defamation appears in 144 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026).
In this practice area
Defamation collects the judgments in which a party sues over a publication said to injure reputation — libel and slander — and the defences the law provides. The reasoning is anchored in the Defamation Act 1957 and the common law, and the collection reflects the prominence of political and media defendants in Malaysian defamation litigation.
The defences are the heart of the area. Judgments examine justification and fair comment under sections 8 and 9 of the Defamation Act 1957, the distinction between a comment and an assertion of fact, and the requirement that the facts on which a comment rests form a sufficient substratum. Qualified privilege and the Reynolds defence of responsible journalism appear where a media defendant reports on a matter of public interest, together with the question whether reportage is a separate defence. The courts also consider absolute privilege — for example, whether it extends to defamatory statements contained in a police report — and the treatment of a "half-truth" statement and whether foreign common law on that doctrine may be applied.
Standing and the identity of the plaintiff recur throughout. Judgments consider whether a political party can sue for defamation and the distinction between locus standi and a cause of action, and whether the words complained of referred to the plaintiff. Where liability is established, the assessment of damages reflects the gravity of the imputation and the reach of the publication, including libel in a newspaper concerning a public figure.
The cases sit mainly in the High Court, with appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court on the scope of the defences. As a whole the area shows how the Malaysian courts balance the protection of reputation against the freedom to comment and to report — holding publishers to account for false and damaging statements while preserving the defences that legitimate speech requires.
Case Volume by Year
2 17
1 18
2 20
6 21
1 22
2 23
26 24
73 25
31 26
2017–2026
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 27 cases Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 19 cases Defamation Act 1957
cited in 15 cases Federal Constitution
cited in 8 cases Societies Act 1966 (Cap 335)
cited in 5 cases Evidence Act
cited in 4 cases Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
cited in 4 cases National Land Code (Cap 828)
cited in 3 cases Communications and Multimedia Act 1998
cited in 2 cases Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)
cited in 2 cases Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
cited in 2 cases Court of Judicature Act 1964
cited in 1 case Interpretation Act
cited in 1 case National Language Act 1963
cited in 1 case National Language Act
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Noor Hayati binti Haji Mat 7 Elaine Yap Chin Gaik 6 Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah bin Raja Mohzan 6 Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal 6 Jamhirah binti Ali 5 Choong Yeow Choy 5 Roslan bin Mat Nor 5 Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James 5 Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi 5 Roz Mawar binti Rozain 5 Noradura binti Hamzah 4 John Lee Kien How @ Mohammad Johan Lee 4 Akhtar bin Tahir 4 Aliza binti Sulaiman 4 Azahar bin Mohamed 4
Top Firms
Raja Riza & Associates 3 C.K. Yap & Partners 3 Brendan Siva 3 Viknesh & Yap 3 Zulpadli & Edham 2 Kanesalingam & Co 2 Othman Hashim & Co 2 Tan & Khong Chambers 2 Zaid Ibrahim Suflan T H Liew & Partners 2 Simon Murali & Co. 2 Nazri Aziz Masura Mak & Tan 2 Low & Partners 2 Rasvin Sodhi & Co 2 Ang & Co. 2 Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor 1
Top Lawyers
Brendan Navin Siva 3 Aida Haryani Salamon 3 Edmund Chow Zi Sim 3 Joanne Rachel Jankins 3 Viknesh Selvanathan 3 Esther Leong Kar Hong 2 Simon Murali 2 Rueben Mathiavaranam 2 Kok Wuen Lin 2 Sumita Balasubramaniam 2 Chang Carrie 2 Rasvinder Kaur Sodhi 2 Jonas Lee Fook Khong 2 Wong Sher Yi 2 Ang Boon Heng 2
How many Defamation cases are reported in Malaysia courts?
144 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026) involve Defamation.
What defences do the courts consider in defamation cases?
The judgments examine justification and fair comment under sections 8 and 9 of the Defamation Act 1957, qualified privilege and the Reynolds defence of responsible journalism, and absolute privilege — including whether it extends to statements in a police report. The distinction between comment and fact is central to fair comment.
Can a political party or public body sue for defamation?
The collection addresses whether a political party can sue and the distinction between locus standi and a cause of action, together with the threshold question whether the words complained of referred to the plaintiff at all.
How are damages assessed in defamation?
Where liability is established, the assessment reflects the gravity of the imputation and the reach of the publication, with newspaper libel concerning a public figure a recurring example. Any award stated is the court's own, as recorded in the judgment.
Cases
Page 3 of 6ba-23ncvc-66-12-2021
INDAH WATER KONSORTIUM SDN BHD v 1. ) PIARAPAKARAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM 2. ) PENYELIDIKAN AIR DAN TENAGA MALAYSIA
2 October 2025
MYHC
da-23cy-06-09-2017
KOMPLEKS PERKAYUAN KELANTAN SDN BHD v HUSAM BIN MUSA
21 September 2025
MYHC
ba-12b-9-01-2024
THIEN HONG MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD v 1. ) MS TIME SDN BHD 2. ) DATUK SERI MOHD EFFANDIE BIN AHMAD
17 September 2025
MYHC
wa-23ncvc-21-04-2025
DATO' DHANARAJ VASUDEVAN v 1. ) DATO' WONG KOK HOONG 2. ) CHIN HEIN CHOONG 3. ) CHEAH SAU NOON 4. ) CHIA WILSON 5. ) CHRISTINA GAN HWEE THENG
10 September 2025
MYHC
jb-12b-2-10-2024
LAU YUN ZHEN v JAMES SOO YA GE
7 September 2025
MYHC
ba-23ncvc-43-07-2025
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
3 September 2025
MYHC
wa-23cy-22-04-2019
1. ) SYNERGY PROMENADE SDN. BHD. 2. ) DATO' ABDUL RAHMAN BIN SOLTAN 3. ) DATO' NORAINI BINTI SOLTAN v 1. ) THE NEW STRAITS TIMES PRESS (MALAYSIA) BERHAD. 2. ) AHMAD SUHAEL ADNAN
26 August 2025
MYHC
wa-23cy-31-06-2018
SYNERGY PROMENADE SDN. BHD v 1. ) THE NEW STRAITS TIMES PRESS (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 2. ) XXXX
26 August 2025
MYHC
wa-23cy-47-12-2024
Tan Sri Razarudin Bin Husain @ Abd Rasid v Wan Muhammad Azri Bin Wan Deris
26 August 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-298-05-2025
1. ) VICTOR WANG 2. ) WANG ZHENG v 1. ) MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN MAMING 2. ) SARA NURASHEKEEN BINTI SUHAILI 3. ) STUDIO TWENTY THREE SDN. BHD.
19 August 2025
MYHC
aa-23cy-1-07-2023
NOR ASHIMAH BINTI RAMLI v SYED MOHD BAKRI BIN SYED ISHAK
17 August 2025
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-220-11-2020
1. ) GRACEFUL FRONTIER SDN BHD 2. ) GOLDEN CASTLE CITY SDN BHD 3. ) GOLDEN HIGHWAY LANDMARK SDN BHD 4. ) PENTAS OTO SDN BHD 5. ) HIGHWAY CITY LAND SDN BHD 6. ) GOLDEN HIGHWAY AUTO-CITY SDN BHD 7. ) GOLDEN STAR LAND SDN BHD v 1. ) THEOW SAY KOW @ TEOH KIANG SENG 2. ) RAVIN MOHANRAJ VELLO
13 August 2025
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-180-11-2021
1. ) DATO' K. KUMARAENDRAN 2. ) DEVKUMAR A/L K. KUMARAENDRAN v 1. ) ALBERT A/L ANTONI TASS 2. ) Selvaraja Namchivayam
11 August 2025
MYHC
ba-23ncvc-24-04-2024
1. ) Mutiara Securities Services Sdn Bhd 2. ) Rayan Sanjev Barr Kumarakulasinghe 3. ) Santhi R. Mahendra Rajah v Steven Gregory
10 August 2025
MYHC
w-02ncvcw-693-04-2024
KOMARKCORP BERHAD v THE EDGE COMMUNICATION SDN. BHD.
30 July 2025
MYCOA
cb-23ncvc-2-08-2022
MAH YOKE KEONG v 1. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN GENTING PERMAI PARK & RESORT 2. ) CHONG AH KOW @ CHONG CHING CHEE 3. ) NG YOON KIN
29 July 2025
MYHC
pa-23ncvc-10-03-2021
LIM LEONG HOCK v 1. ) HUA HANG SHIPPING & TRADING (M) SDN BHD 2. ) TUNG GIM CHUAN 3. ) PHOON SOOK FONG 4. ) LIM LEONG HENG
7 July 2025
MYHC
wa-23cy-39-09-2022
MOHD NAJIB BIN ASADDOK v MUHAMMAD FARQHAN BIN KHAIRUDIN
2 July 2025
MYHC
ba-12b-97-09-2024
INTAN SHAHNAZLAH BINTI ABDULLAH v MUHAMMAD NAIM BIN GHULAM MUHAMMAD
25 June 2025
MYHC
wa-23cy-24-04-2021
Lee Siew Mei v Chew Chin Swee
24 June 2025
MYHC
wa-23cy-25-04-2021
Lee Siew Mei v 1. ) Shereen Lim Binti Abdullah 2. ) Tan Wai Ping 3. ) Aida Phang Abdullah 4. ) Chew Chin Swee 5. ) Dato' Ngiam Foon
24 June 2025
MYHC
wa-23cy-71-12-2019
1. ) AIDA PHANG BINTI ABDULLAH 2. ) TAN WAI PING 3. ) SHEREEN LIM BINTI ABDULLAH 4. ) CHEW CHIN SWEE 5. ) DATO' NGIAM FOON v LEE SIEW MEI
24 June 2025
MYHC
ba-23cy-5-02-2023
1. ) SITI FARHANA BINTI MOHD PAKEH 2. ) AHMAD FIRDAUS BIN MUHAMAD NGADI v SITI NUR AINIEN SOFIEYA BINTI MOHD ZUKI
2 June 2025
MYHC
pa-23ncvc-3-05-2025
1. ) YCE PRESTIGE MANAGEMENT PLT 2. ) TAN CHOON HWA 3. ) OOI SIN WU 4. ) LAU TZE YANG v 1. ) TAN BENG HIN 2. ) THE CHINA PRESS BHD
21 May 2025
MYHC