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

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

ca-23ncvc-3-08-2021 MELIMA ASSETS SDN BHD v MUHAMAD ARIFPIN BIN MANSOR

27 April 2026

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

ja-12b-75-11-2025 CHAN SAN SAN v LIM THOW SIANG

20 April 2026

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 case

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

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

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

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

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

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

w-02w-1130-07-2023 SUNDRA RAJOO A/L NADARAJAH v Leaderonomics Sdn Bhd

22 February 2026

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

w-02ncvcw-2301-12-2024 YEOH TSEOW SUAN v MUSA BIN HAJI HASSAN

12 January 2026

Transfer of proceedings from High Court to Sessions Court — Current trend for award of damages in defamation 1 case

ba-23cy-19-08-2025 1. ) CHER GUAN CHUN 2. ) CHER INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD v LIM CHAN HON

4 January 2026

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

ja-23ncvc-15-10-2022 1. ) FNC CORPORATE PLT 2. ) FIRDAUS AMMAMI BIN FAUZEE v EZHAM BIN ABD WAHID

10 December 2025

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

ba-12bcy-2-02-2025 MOHD KHAIRUDDIN BIN AMAN RAZALI v SIN CHEW MEDIA CORPORATION BHD

26 October 2025

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

ka-23cy-1-08-2023 DATO' SERI MUHAMMAD SANUSI BIN MD NOR v DATUK SERI SAIFUDDIN NASUTION BIN ISMAIL

23 August 2025

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

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

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

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

Public officials — Freedom of speech — Constitutional rights 1 case

wa-23ncvc-36-05-2021 YEOH TSEOW SUAN v MUSA BIN HAJI HASSAN

22 December 2024

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

p-02ncvcw-1085-07-2023 LIM GUAN ENG v 1. ) DATUK TAN TEIK CHENG 2. ) STAR MEDIA GROUP BERHAD

5 December 2024

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

pa-23cy-3-11-2023 TAN SRI LIM KIT SIANG v YB DR. SITI MASTURA BINTI MUHAMMAD

3 December 2024

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

pa-23ncvc-3-01-2024 TAN SRI DATO' SERI TAN KOK PING v CHOW KON YEOW

25 November 2024

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

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

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

MYHC 122 MYFC 11 MYCOA 11

Key People & Firms

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.