Tort : Defamation
5 cases · August 2017 to November 2025
Case Volume by Year
1 17
4 25
2017–2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Libel — Social media publication (TikTok) — Allegation of sending pornographic videos (‘video ghairah’) and committing adultery (‘zina’) — Whether words imputed actual guilt or mere suspicion — Chase Levels — Whether imputation fell within Chase Level 1 — Defence of Justification — Respondent admitted video was not obscene — Whether defence of Justification sustainable — Defence of Fair Comment — Whether comment based on untrue facts serves as valid defence — Qualified Privilege — Reply to attack — Whether counter-allegations of immorality were disproportionate to the provocation — Whether malice established — Recklessness in publishing known falsehoods CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal — Appellate intervention — Findings of fact — Standard of review — ‘Plainly wrong’ test — Trial judge failed to appreciate fatal admission by Respondent — Whether appellate court can disturb findings on credibility where documentary evidence contradicts oral testimony CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings — Counterclaim — Requirement to plead defamatory words ad verbatim — Failure to particularise impugned words — Whether counterclaim ought to be dismissed in limine DAMAGES: Quantum — Assessment — Global sum — Principles in awarding global sum for general and aggravated damages — Avoidance of double counting — Deterrence against cyber-bullying — Public policy considerations regarding social media toxicity 1 Elements of Defamation — Whether the Defamatory Statements was published — Defamatory statements via Whatsapp — Whether a show cause and termination letter can be considered as defamatory. Claim Dismissed. EVIDENCE: Burden of proof — Balance of Probabilities — Witness Statements filed without knowledge of witness. 1 Slander and Libel — Offending statements uttered during meeting via MS Teams — An excerpt of the recording circulated via Whatsapp — Whether Offending Statements are capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory imputations about Plaintiff’s professional capability and moral character — No justification pleaded or proved — Explanation given appeared wholly incongruous with the fact — Whether Defendant responsible for the Publication and the Re-Publication of the Offending Statements — Meeting recorded and saved in public channel with access by all employees — Whether it was the natural and probable result of the original publication — Remedies — Quantum is limited by the size and influence of the circulation that the Defendant is legally responsible for — General and aggravated damages — Unapologetic conduct — Manufactured defence 1 Libel — Whether the Facebook post and Telegram chat are defamatory of the Plaintiff — Whether the letter of demand shared in Telegram defamed the Defendant — Whether it was the Plaintiff who published the letter of demand to Telegram — Burden of proof — Damages — Factors to consider in assessing compensatory damages — The gravity, influence and effect of the Facebook post to the Plaintiff — Subsequent conducts — Defendant’s lack of remorse — Non-monetary benefits — Amplification of online influence — Global award of general, aggravated and exemplary damages 1 Absolute privilege — Letters alleged to be defamatory sent to various investigative agencies without authority or mandate — Whether absence of such authority or mandate would negate or make unavailable defence of absolute privilege — Whether requisite authority or mandate is necessary for absolute privilege to apply Tort : Defamation — Absolute privilege — Nature and scope of — Whether police report protected by absolute privilege — Public policy considerations Tort : Defamation — Absolute privilege — Reports to other public investigative agencies and authorities — Whether ratio in Lee Yoke Ham v. Chin Keat Seng ought to be applied to reports to other public investigative agencies and authorities — Whether report to other public investigative agencies and authorities protected by absolute privilege Tort : Defamation — Libel — Malice — Whether defence of qualified privilege not available if shown tortfeasor actuated by actual or express malice or if tortfeasor motivated by some indirect or wrong motive — Whether mere act of filing complaints with various relevant authorities, without more, insufficient to prove malice Tort : Defamation — Qualified privilege — Letter of complaint sent by Complainant as President of Association to Bar Council because Complainee an advocate and solicitor — Whether Complainant had an interest to make such complaint — Whether Bar Council had corresponding interest to receive such letter of complaint — Whether such letter of complaint protected by qualified privilege Tort : Defamation — Qualified privilege — Nature and scope of — Whether qualified privilege depended on the nature of the occasion in which the impugned communication was made — Whether a matter of law for the judge to decide whether occasion was privilege 1
Elements of Defamation — Whether the Defamatory Statements was published — Defamatory statements via Whatsapp — Whether a show cause and termination letter can be considered as defamatory. Claim Dismissed. EVIDENCE: Burden of proof — Balance of Probabilities — Witness Statements filed without knowledge of witness. 1 case
Slander and Libel — Offending statements uttered during meeting via MS Teams — An excerpt of the recording circulated via Whatsapp — Whether Offending Statements are capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory imputations about Plaintiff’s professional capability and moral character — No justification pleaded or proved — Explanation given appeared wholly incongruous with the fact — Whether Defendant responsible for the Publication and the Re-Publication of the Offending Statements — Meeting recorded and saved in public channel with access by all employees — Whether it was the natural and probable result of the original publication — Remedies — Quantum is limited by the size and influence of the circulation that the Defendant is legally responsible for — General and aggravated damages — Unapologetic conduct — Manufactured defence 1 case
Key Statutes
Rules of Court 2012
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Cases
ka-12b-10-05-2025
NURUL SHUHADA BINTI BASHIR v 1. ) SARA NURSHAZANA BINTI SHAHRUDIN 2. ) ROZIYANA BINTI RAMLI
22 November 2025
MYHC
ba-23ncvc-41-09-2022
MANIMARAN A/L SUPERMANIAM v 1. ) LINDE MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. ) YUEN YEE FEI 3. ) TOLL INTEGRATED LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD 4. ) SIVAKUMAR A/L MUNIANDY 5. ) HALEEN KAUR SANGHA
19 May 2025
MYHC
ba-23ncvc-67-12-2021
ROHANA BINTI IBRAHIM v KHADIJAH BINTI ISKANDAR PIHAK TERKILAN Mohamad Yusri bin Abdullah
20 January 2025
MYHC
ba-23ncvc-49-10-2021
Chua Chin Soon v Wong Yew Choong
8 January 2025
MYHC
02-72-10-2015w
DATO' DR LOW BIN TICK v DATUK CHONG THO CHIN
6 August 2017
MYFC