Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Justification defence

Legal area

Court

13 Jan 2026

YEOH TSEOW SUAN MUSA BIN HAJI HASSAN

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-2301-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-2301-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the learned Judicial Commissioner erred: Derbyshire principle was misapplied and did not deprive the appellant of locus standi; the impugned statements were defamatory, referred to the appellant and were published; the respondent failed to particularise or prove justification, fair comment or qualified privilege (failed pleading, relied on inadmissible opinion and did not satisfy Reynolds/responsible journalism); appeal allowed, LJC judgment reversed, damages RM250,000 and costs RM60,000 awarded to appellant.
18 Sept 2025

THIEN HONG MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD 1. ) MS TIME SDN BHD 2. ) DATUK SERI MOHD EFFANDIE BIN AHMAD

Citation

BA-12B-9-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-9-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to discharge the burden to prove justification as at the date of publication; evidence showed Plaintiff 1 had settled amounts before publication and Plaintiff 2 never guaranteed the debt, Defendant 3 acted as publisher under Defendant 1's authority so both are jointly liable for defamation and malicious falsehood, malice and damage were established, and given seriousness and persistence the appellate court increased damages to RM150,000 and varied the injunction to permanent.
29 Apr 2025

Mahdzir Bin Md Isa (Mendakwa Sebagai Pegawai Awam Pertubuhan Ikram Malaysia Di Bawah Seksyen 9(c) Akta Pertubuhan 1966) MOHD RIDHUAN TEE BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

BA-23NCvC-19-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-19-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court applied binding Federal Court authority in Lim Lip Eng and s9(c) Societies Act 1966 and held that a society which lacks separate legal personality cannot maintain an action for defamation in its own name because it does not possess the legally protectable reputation required; accordingly the Plaintiff (a society sued via its public officer) lacked locus standi and the claim was dismissed.
20 May 2024

ABDUL WAHAB BIN ABD KADER JILANI BADRUL HISHAM BIN SHAHARIN

Citation

WA-23CY-38-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-38-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application for interim injunction dismissed because the plaintiff materially failed to disclose key facts (admission he recorded the video and related public events) in breach of Order 29 Rule 1(2A) RoC, and on the merits there was no incontrovertible defamatory meaning, viable defences were raised and damages were an adequate remedy; plaintiff's conduct evidenced unclean hands and mala fides preventing equitable relief.
19 Aug 2022

DHAMODARAN A/L MUNUSAMY SUMATHI A/P TAMBYRASAH

Citation

AA-B53F-7-12/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-B53F-7-12/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the affidavit evidence the impugned social media postings were clearly defamatory with no reasonable explanation offered; the case fell within established exceptions to the reluctance to grant interlocutory relief in libel, so an interim injunction was necessary to preserve parties' positions pending trial and was therefore granted.
27 Apr 2022

DONNA LAU SHAN SHAN 1. ) CHRISTINA MEI MEI NG 2. ) YAP HONG HUI

Citation

BA-23CY-9-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23CY-9-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the defamation suit and the mass Jaya One litigation are distinct with different causes of action and reliefs, the cause of action and defendants have closest nexus to Shah Alam/Petaling Jaya, the defendants failed to satisfy Order 57 criteria for transfer and transfer would prejudice and delay the plaintiff; therefore the transfer application is dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
25 Apr 2022

MOHD ZHAFRI BIN AMINURASHID ROSLINDA BINTI ABD LATIP

Citation

BA-23CY-6-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23CY-6-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The postings (including photograph and name) were defamatory, referred to the Plaintiff and were published; Defendant failed to prove justification because evidence showed a third party (Helmi) was responsible for non-delivery and failed to prove alleged facts underpinning fair comment; therefore Plaintiff established tort of defamation and is entitled to remedies including RM60,000 damages, an injunction and an apology, with costs awarded to Plaintiff.
27 Nov 2020

Jamal Bin Md Yunos Teresa Kok Suh Sim

Citation

W-02(IM)-188-02/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)-188-02/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appeal was dismissed because the strike out application was filed after the action had been set down for trial and thus suffered inordinate delay warranting dismissal; further, on the merits the claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and involved factual issues (justification defence and alleged malice) that required trial, so the claim was not obviously unsustainable and was not amenable to summary striking out.
12 Nov 2019

A Paramalatha a/p Arumugam (NRIC No. 650519-07-5506) Sated Mortgage Sdn Bhd (Company No. 376110-K)

Citation

PA-12B-19-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12B-19-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Second libel (solicitor's letter) did not, in its natural and ordinary meaning, refer to the plaintiff and claim against it fails. First libel (CTOS entry) was published and defamatory; defendant failed to establish justification because the alleged loan agreement was not valid or enforceable and statutory requirements under the Moneylenders Act were not complied with, and the registration card could not bind the plaintiff if used by third parties; consequently defendant liable for the first libel and plaintiff entitled to damages and injunctive relief.
1 Jan 1900

MRA INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD SPC DIATECH, LLC

Citation

WA-23CY-11-03/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-11-03/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found the impugned correspondence was defamatory but Defendant established justification and fair comment; Plaintiff’s tort claims for inducing breach and unlawful interference failed; Court found Plaintiff breached the Agency Agreement, infringed Defendant’s copyright (substantial copying of presentations/web content/screenshots) and misused Defendant’s confidential technical information (procedure, formula, software screenshots); accordingly Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed and Defendant’s counterclaim allowed with declarations, perpetual injunctions, delivery up and inquiries for da…