Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Justification (truth)

  • 5 Mar 2026

    YB LIM GUAN ENG 1. ) DATUK ZURAIDA BINTI KAMARUDDIN 2. ) MUHAMMAD ABD AR-RAHMAN KOYA 3. ) MNOW MEDIA SDN BHD.

    Citation
    BA-23CY-15-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-23CY-15-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The Court found the publications defamatory, rejected the Defendants' defences (justification, fair comment, qualified privilege, responsible journalism) due to lack of independent corroboration and evidence of malice/reckless disregard for the truth, and awarded the Plaintiff a global sum of RM50,000 in damages and RM5,000 in costs, moderated because the Plaintiff is a seasoned public figure and the matter concerned public interest.

  • 5 Mar 2026

    YB LIM GUAN ENG 1. ) DATUK ZURAIDA BINTI KAMARUDDIN 2. ) MUHAMMAD ABD AR-RAHMAN KOYA 3. ) MNOW MEDIA SDN BHD.

    Citation
    BA-23CY-15-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-23CY-15-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Plaintiff proved publication, reference and defamatory meanings; defendants failed to discharge burden of proof for justification and did not establish fair comment, qualified privilege or responsible journalism due to lack of independent corroboration and persisting publication despite requests for retraction; malice/reckless disregard was established, but quantum of damages is moderated by public‑interest context and Plaintiff's public figure status, resulting in an award of RM50,000 damages and RM5,000 costs to the Plaintiff.

  • 31 Dec 2025

    1. ) Muhammad Hanafi Bin Yusoff 2. ) Nor Raihan Binti Shukor Siti Najihah Binti Othman

    Citation
    JA-B53F-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    JA-B53F-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    On the balance of probabilities the post and videos referred to the plaintiffs and were published to third parties and, read in their ordinary meaning and context, were defamatory; defendant failed to prove justification because the alleged admissions by the second plaintiff were obtained under pressure and were not voluntary; the defence of fair comment also failed because the matter was essentially a private domestic dispute not a matter of public interest; malice was established and accordingly plaintiffs' claim is allowed and the defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

  • 22 Dec 2025

    Aafiyat Marketing Sdn. Bhd. MUHD SHAKIR AS-SALAM BIN YA

    Citation
    KA-22NCvC-44-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-22NCvC-44-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Court found all three elements of defamation established (defamatory meaning, reference to plaintiff, publication). Defendant failed to prove justification because he produced no chemical analysis of the plaintiff's product and possessed a Chemiservice report confirming high hydroxytyrosol levels. Defences of fair comment and qualified privilege failed because statements were presented as factual allegations, lacked factual substratum, and were actuated by express commercial malice. Plaintiff entitled to vindicatory general damages and exemplary damages for profit-driven malice; injunction, i…

  • 14 Oct 2025

    DING MING MING 1. ) LIM SU JIN 2. ) LIM SU LING

    Citation
    JA-23NCvC-4-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-23NCvC-4-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court held that the impugned Facebook posts and WhatsApp messages were defamatory and published to third parties, that identification of the Plaintiff within the relevant circle was established, and that the Defendants failed to prove justification, fair comment or qualified privilege; the Defendants' own pleading admitting deliberate publication to damage the Plaintiff established malice and negated their defences, warranting a global award of RM350,000 plus injunctive and remedial orders.

  • 24 Aug 2025

    DATO' SERI MUHAMMAD SANUSI BIN MD NOR DATUK SERI SAIFUDDIN NASUTION BIN ISMAIL

    Citation
    KA-23CY-1-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-23CY-1-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court found both impugned speeches referred to the plaintiff, were published, and bore defamatory imputations (REE accused plaintiff of theft; MARRIS accused him of serious financial misgovernance). The Defendant failed to prove truth/justification and fair comment, and malice was inferred from selective half-truths, timing during an election campaign and reckless reliance on withdrawn or incomplete documents; qualified privilege did not apply. Republication liability attached. Remedy: defendant liable for defamation and ordered to pay damages, costs and to make specified apologies and un…

  • 21 Aug 2025

    NURUL AMIRAH BINTI OMAR CHE KHASMAWANI BINTI CHE MOHD NOOR

    Citation
    TA-A53F-2-08/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    TA-A53F-2-08/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The Court found the Plaintiff proved the three essential elements of defamation (defamatory meaning, identification, and publication to third parties). The Defendant elected not to call witnesses after a 'no case to answer' submission; by established authority the Plaintiff's uncontroverted evidence is to be treated as true and the burden shifted to the Defendant to prove truth/justification. The Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of falsity; accordingly the impugned publications were defamatory and the Plaintiff was entitled to damages, interest and costs as assessed by the Court.

  • 25 Jun 2025

    Lee Siew Mei Chew Chin Swee

    Citation
    WA-23CY-24-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-23CY-24-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Court held that two statements authored by Lee Siew Mei (Statement 1 and Statement 6) were defamatory of the five claimants because they imputed fabrication, dishonesty and criminality, were understood to refer to named individuals (notably the Treasurer) and were published to relevant WhatsApp groups; Lee could not prove justification (truth) or that statements amounted to fair comment or were protected by qualified privilege because she relied on assumptions, selective evidence, failed to call corroborating witnesses and published recklessly; by contrast statements in the other suits were e…

  • 3 Jun 2025

    1. ) SITI FARHANA BINTI MOHD PAKEH 2. ) AHMAD FIRDAUS BIN MUHAMAD NGADI SITI NUR AINIEN SOFIEYA BINTI MOHD ZUKI

    Citation
    BA-23CY-5-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-23CY-5-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Publication D dismissed for defective pleading because offending sections were not specified; Publications A–D generally lacked sufficient objective identifiers to refer to the Plaintiffs except Publication A which contained an objective identifier linking it to the 1st Plaintiff's publicised flood donation drive; Publication A was capable of defamatory meaning as to the 1st Plaintiff; Defendant failed to prove justification or fair comment; award of RM30,000 general damages to 1st Plaintiff and RM25,000 costs.

  • 8 May 2025

    NUR SYUHADA BINTI ISMAIL ZAITON BINTI ABDULLAH

    Citation
    KA-23NCvC-4-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-23NCvC-4-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities the court found D1 and D2 published the impugned Facebook/Whatsapp statements which referred to the plaintiff and were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning; defendants failed to establish justification or fair comment in respect of those publications; plaintiff proved loss of business and reputational damage warranting awards of general and aggravated damages; defendants' counterclaims failed because the plaintiff established justification and fair comment for her WhatsApp/Facebook statements. Accordingly plaintiff’s claims succeeded to the extent o…