Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Absolute privilege

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2025

1. ) THE ROOF REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) DATUK WIRA (DR.) NICHOLAS YAP CHUNG HAN 1. ) CHY AUTOWORLD SDN. BHD. (yang juga dikenali dan/atau berniaga di bawah nama CAR KING MALAYSIA) 2. ) DATO CALVIN YAP KIM HENG

Citation

WA-22IP-92-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-92-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The solicitor's letter of demand was a pre-action communication integral to and serving as the precursor to the main suit and therefore attracted absolute privilege; the counterclaim failed in any event for lack of adequately pleaded publication particulars and for failure to plead malice with the required particularity, and accordingly disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted abuse of process and was struck out with costs.
8 May 2025

Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah 1. ) Hannah Kam Zhen Yi 2. ) Messrs. Thomas Philip

Citation

WA-23NCvC-114-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-114-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the letter dated 9.12.2021 was issued in the context of existing court proceedings (Suit 140) and was brought into existence for the purposes of those proceedings; therefore it was protected by absolute privilege and alternatively qualified privilege. Accordingly the Statement of Claim against the 1st Defendant disclosed no actionable claim and was struck out; costs of RM15,000 awarded to the 1st Defendant.
8 May 2025

Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah 1. ) Hannah Kam Zhen Yi 2. ) Messrs. Thomas Philip

Citation

WA-23NCvC-114-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-114-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the letter dated 9.12.2021 was written in the context of pending litigation (Suit 140) and comprised solicitors' correspondence made coram judice; therefore it attracted absolute privilege which wholly defeated the defamation claim against Defendant 2. Alternatively the communication attracted qualified privilege, there was no proof of publication beyond solicitors or of damage, and the claim as pleaded disclosed no reasonable cause of action against Defendant 2 and was an abuse of process; accordingly the claim against Defendant 2 is struck out and costs awarded to Defendant…
10 Nov 2024

DJOHAN DARMADI YEOH KOK WOOI

Citation

KA-23NCvC-2-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-23NCvC-2-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The police report relied on by the Plaintiff is protected by absolute privilege and, absent credible evidence of further publication to third parties, cannot form the basis of a sustainable defamation claim; accordingly the writ and statement of claim disclose no reasonable cause and are obviously unsustainable.
4 Apr 2024

HER CHOR SIONG 1. ) CUSCAPI BERHAD 2. ) ANTHONY GERALD A/L R. VICTOR

Citation

WA-22NCvC-542-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-542-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 24.9.2018 letter arose from and was ancillary to Suit 339 and is therefore protected by absolute privilege; the plaintiff’s defamation claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the suit is struck out; costs awarded to the defendants.
21 Mar 2024

MENAKA A/P T. VAZAPURY 1. ) DATO' NATARAJEN A/L MANOHRAN 2. ) DATO' SATISHKUMAR A/L MANOHRAN

Citation

NA-12BCY-1-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-12BCY-1-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court findings: the Facebook posting and video were defamatory, referred specifically to the plaintiffs and were published to third parties; the defendant failed to prove justification or entitlement to qualified or absolute privilege and acted mala fide; accordingly the award of RM100,000 general damages to each plaintiff, injunction, apology order, 5% interest and costs was justified and the appeal was dismissed.
29 Feb 2024

OTHMAN BIN MARZUKI 1. ) LOYANG EKUITI SDN BHD 2. ) BEH THING THING

Citation

PA-22NCvC-27-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-27-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove forgery on a balance of probabilities because the handwriting expert’s report was unreliable (no originals and unverified specimens) and recorded conversations did not constitute admissions; further, Plaintiff discovered any alleged forgery while still a director and failed to act to protect the company (breach of fiduciary duty and estoppel including his resignation letter), thus precluding his claim; the company’s counterclaim for libel succeeds because the statutory declaration was defamatory, not justified or privileged, and general damages of RM50,000 are approp…
31 Oct 2023

CHIN FELIX GERALDINE S. BIGAR

Citation

BA-23NCvC-17-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-17-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The impugned statements are defamatory and refer to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff failed on the balance of probabilities to prove publication to any third party; therefore the defamation claim fails and no substantive relief is awarded.
25 Jan 2023

MOHD AMAR BIN MOHAMED SHARIFAH AISYAH BINTI SYED MOHAMED

Citation

WA-23NCvC-113-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-113-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the facts the police report was made to enforce an interim custody order and to locate allegedly alienated children and was not shown to be tainted by malice; therefore the defence of absolute privilege applied and the plaintiff's defamation claim was obviously unsustainable and was struck out under O.18 r.19; the interlocutory injunction did not constitute res judicata and the recusal application became academic and was dismissed.
29 Aug 2022

AGESON BERHAD (SEBELUMNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI PRINSIPTEK CORPORATION BERHAD) 1. ) LIM PANG KIAM 2. ) YAP CHEE KHENG 3. ) PNL CAPITAL SDN BHD 4. ) PNL BUSINESS SERVICES SDN BHD 5. ) PNL TRADING SDN BHD 6. ) SUBANG INDUSTRY PARK SDN BHD 7. ) TIA

Citation

WA-23NCvC-71-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-71-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court refused to strike out the plaintiff's Statement of Claim (enclosures 23 and 24) because on the pleadings a reasonable cause of action could be discerned and the matters of absolute privilege, defamatory meaning and abuse of process raised disputed factual and legal issues that require full trial and viva voce evidence; the summary power under O.18 r.19 RC 2012 is not appropriate absent a plain and obvious lack of merit.