SUNDRA RAJOO A/L NADARAJAH Leaderonomics Sdn Bhd

SUNDRA RAJOO A/L NADARAJAH Leaderonomics Sdn Bhd

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove the particular device from which the publication originated and that the respondent had custody or control of that device at the material time; consequently the presumption under s.114A(3) Evidence Act 1950 could not be invoked and respondent could not be held liable for the publication based on the evidence adduced (metadata and circumstantial inferences were insufficient).

Citation
W-02(W)-1130-07/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Sundra Rajoo a/l Nadarajah Perayu; Respondent / 1st Defendant: Leaderonomics Sdn Bhd; 2nd Defendant (deceased): Huganeswaran a/l Veerasagram
Court
W
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 February 2026
Case Number
W-02(W)-1130-07/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation) / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal From High Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Publication, Presumption Under S.114 a Evidence Act 1950, Metadata Reliability, Burden of Proof, Custody and Control of Device
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Evidence Internet / Computer Law Forensic Evidence Civil Procedure Publication Presumption Under S.114 a Evidence Act 1950 Metadata Reliability +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sundra Rajoo a/l Nadarajah Perayu

Appellant / Plaintiff

Leaderonomics Sdn Bhd

Respondent / 1st Defendant

Huganeswaran a/l Veerasagram

2nd Defendant (deceased)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation) / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal From High Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent can be presumed to have published or re-published the impugned digital publication under s.114A(3) Evidence Act 1950
  2. 2 Whether metadata showing author as "Leaderonomics" suffices to identify the particular device and link publication to respondent
  3. 3 Whether the presumption in s.114A(3) was rebutted by proof that the respondent did not have custody or control of the device at the material time

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove the particular device from which the publication originated and that the respondent had custody or control of that device at the material time; consequently the presumption under s.114A(3) Evidence Act 1950 could not be invoked and respondent could not be held liable for the publication based on the evidence adduced (metadata and circumstantial inferences were insufficient).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of RM30,000.00 to the respondent (subject to allocator fees)