Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Justification

Legal area

Court

8 Sept 2025

LAU YUN ZHEN JAMES SOO YA GE

Citation

JB-12B-2-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-12B-2-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The trial judge correctly applied the legal test for defamation, found on the facts that the defendant made false defamatory statements referring to the plaintiff and published to third parties, rejected the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege, properly applied s73A(2) to admit documents, and reached a justifiable assessment of RM80,000 for global damages; appeal dismissed.
14 Aug 2025

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 1. ) THEOW SAY KO

Citation

PA-22NCvC-220-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-220-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Notice defamatory and referring to the Plaintiffs; evidence established the 2nd Defendant participated in and caused publication; defendants published maliciously or with reckless disregard for truth; statutory and common law defences (justification, Lucas-Box, qualified privilege, Reynolds, absolute privilege, s8, s9, s11) failed; exemplary and aggravated damages awarded and counterclaims dismissed.
12 Aug 2025

1. ) DATO' K. KUMARAENDRAN 2. ) DEVKUMAR A/L K. KUMARAENDRAN 1. ) ALBERT A/L ANTONI TASS 2. ) Selvaraja Namchivayam

Citation

PA-22NCvC-180-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-180-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The impugned words in the 23.8.2021 letter bore defamatory meanings referring to the Plaintiffs, were published when personnel of the Plaintiffs' firm read the letter, and the Second Defendant is liable for those words as principal for his solicitor; pleaded defences failed for lack of pleaded particulars and evidence, no offer of amends under s7 was made and malice was established; judgment for Plaintiffs with global damages and costs awarded.
14 Jul 2025

1. ) Tuan Muhammad Shahrul Azlan Bin Tuan Abdul Rahman 2. ) Siti Nur Amira Binti Ibrahim 1. ) Dr. Sarah Sakinah Binti Abd Rahman 2. ) Tuan Pengarah, Hospital Besut 3. ) Tuan Pengarah, Hospital Sultanah Nur Zahirah 4. ) Pengarah Hospital Raj

Citation

TA-B51CY-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-B51CY-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiffs failed to prove the conjunctive elements of defamation, failed to prove malice and failed to prove compensable loss; the defendant established justification and fair comment based on facts and witness evidence; therefore the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.
25 Jun 2025

1. ) AIDA PHANG BINTI ABDULLAH 2. ) TAN WAI PING 3. ) SHEREEN LIM BINTI ABDULLAH 4. ) CHEW CHIN SWEE 5. ) DATO' NGIAM FOON LEE SIEW MEI

Citation

WA-23CY-71-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-71-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found Statements 1 and 6 to be defamatory of the five claimants and that the defendant failed to establish justification, fair comment or qualified privilege for those statements because they were unsubstantiated, false in material respects and published recklessly; conversely Statements 8 and 9 were not defamatory and were protected as fair comment. Damages of RM50,000 were awarded to each claimant and costs awarded to plaintiffs for Suit 71; claims by the defendant in the related suits were dismissed.
25 Jun 2025

Lee Siew Mei 1. ) Shereen Lim Binti Abdullah 2. ) Tan Wai Ping 3. ) Aida Phang Abdullah 4. ) Chew Chin Swee 5. ) Dato' Ngiam Foon

Citation

WA-23CY-25-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-25-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found that two WhatsApp statements authored by Lee Siew Mei (Statement 1 dated 20.2.2019 and Statement 6 dated 14.4.2019) were defamatory of the claimants and were not protected by justification, fair comment or qualified privilege; other impugned publications were either not authored by Lee or were protected as fair comment; awarded general damages of RM50,000 to each of the five claimants in Suit 71; claims in Suit 24 and Suit 25 dismissed.
25 Jun 2025

1. ) AIDA PHANG BINTI ABDULLAH 2. ) TAN WAI PING 3. ) SHEREEN LIM BINTI ABDULLAH 4. ) CHEW CHIN SWEE 5. ) DATO' NGIAM FOON LEE SIEW MEI

Citation

WA-23CY-71-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-71-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found that two of the impugned WhatsApp communications (Statement 1 and Statement 6) bore defamatory imputations against identified plaintiffs and that the defendant failed to establish justification, fair comment or qualified privilege for those statements due to lack of corroborative evidence and reckless publication; other challenged statements were not found defamatory or were protected by fair comment; consequentially plaintiffs in Suit 71 were awarded injunctive relief, withdrawal/apology, undertakings and general damages RM50,000 each with interest and costs, while claims in Suit…
30 May 2025

HANNAH YEOH TSEOW SUAN KAMARUL ZAMAN BIN HAJI YUSOFF

Citation

WA-23CY-10-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-10-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the Plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that the impugned words in both publications were defamatory and referred to her; the Defendant failed to plead or prove justification, fair comment or qualified privilege (particulars were inadequate and relied on isolated passages), and the publications were actuated by malice which defeated any qualified privilege or fair comment; accordingly judgment entered for the Plaintiff with damages, interest, injunction and costs.
7 May 2025

LIM GUAN ENG OH TONG KEONG

Citation

PA-23NCvC-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-23NCvC-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found the FIS (press statement) and the SIS/TIS (China Press print and online articles) were defamatory of the plaintiff, referred to him and were published or caused to be published by the respective defendants; OTK either published or facilitated publication and caused China Press to publish the articles; defendants failed to discharge burdens for defences of justification, qualified privilege (including responsible journalism), fair comment, reportage and Lucas Box; therefore plaintiff succeeded on libel claims; damages, injunctions and apology ordered (OTK: global RM400,000; China P…
7 May 2025

LIM GUAN ENG THE CHINA PRESS BERHAD

Citation

PA-23NCvC-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-23NCvC-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the FIS, SIS and TIS defamatory of Lim Guan Eng; OTK published or caused publication (s114A and agency/authorisation principles) and failed to discharge burdens for justification, qualified privilege and fair comment (including responsible journalism); China Press likewise failed on reportage, Lucas Box, fair comment and s12(2) defence. Judgment for plaintiff; damages, interest and costs awarded and injunctions/apology ordered.