Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Libel

Legal area

Court

25 Feb 2026

SITI AMALINA AZIMAH BINTI AZHAR MOHD RAHMAT BIN ABDUL HAMID

Citation

BA-12B-17-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-17-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

When the impugned Facebook posts and videos are read as a whole in their context they convey serious defamatory imputations against the respondent; the appellant failed to prove truth or that the statements were fair comment and malice could be inferred from the manner and audience of publication; therefore the trial court's findings of liability, RM50,000 general damages, permanent injunction, deletion orders and order to publish an apology were legally justified and not plainly wrong on appeal.
11 Jan 2026

BEN SIDI MANAGEMENT SDN BHD FARIS IRWAN BIN SHAFPII

Citation

TA-B53CY-1-04/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-B53CY-1-04/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found postings were defamatory in natural and ordinary meaning, referred to plaintiff despite absence of name because context identified the contractor, and were published to third parties on Facebook; defendant failed to establish justification and fair comment because of malice and inability to prove truth (CCC issued later did not validate defendant’s assertions regarding the state of workmanship at publication); accordingly plaintiff entitled to remedies: unconditional public apology (video with specified content), permanent injunction restraining repetition, general damages RM20,00…
5 Jan 2026

1. ) CHER GUAN CHUN 2. ) CHER INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD LIM CHAN HON

Citation

BA-23CY-19-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23CY-19-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to transfer was allowed because the court found, on the authorities and recent trends, that the plaintiffs' claimed quantum was unlikely to require High Court jurisdiction; multiple publications could be assessed by a rolled-up award; filing in the High Court where the sub-court likely has jurisdiction risks abuse of process; accordingly the discretion under Order 57 r 1 must be exercised to transfer the matter to the Sessions Court; costs were fixed at RM5,000.
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.
30 Nov 2025

1. ) Noor Azman Bin Surudh Ali 2. ) Muhammad Amirul Ashraff Bin Noor Azman Mohd Shafie Bin Hamzah PIHAK KETIGA MUHAMMAD AMIRUL HAKIM BIN NOR AFFEDI

Citation

TA-B53F-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-B53F-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiffs failed to prove essential elements of libel because their case relied on screenshots marked only as ID and they did not call the makers or primary sources nor satisfy s90A (computer‑generated document) requirements; therefore no prima facie case was established and the defendants' no‑case submissions succeeded; accordingly plaintiffs' claims are dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.
30 Nov 2025

1. ) Noor Azman Bin Surudh Ali 2. ) Muhammad Amirul Ashraff Bin Noor Azman Shaidi Bin Mohammed PIHAK KETIGA WAN YUSUF ISKANDAR BIN WAN HASSAN

Citation

TA-B53F-3-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-B53F-3-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of libel because the core evidence (WhatsApp screenshots) remained identification (ID) documents without maker testimony or primary evidence and plaintiffs did not satisfy statutory requirements for admission of computer‑generated documents (s90A) or exceptions to hearsay (s73A); accordingly evidential burden never shifted to defendants and claims were dismissed.
27 Aug 2025

1. ) SYNERGY PROMENADE SDN. BHD. 2. ) DATO' ABDUL RAHMAN BIN SOLTAN 3. ) DATO' NORAINI BINTI SOLTAN 1. ) THE NEW STRAITS TIMES PRESS (MALAYSIA) BERHAD. 2. ) AHMAD SUHAEL ADNAN

Citation

WA-23CY-22-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-22-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On a plain and proper reading the impugned article merely reported a police report and did not allege the publisher's own defamatory assertion; consequently it disclosed no reasonable cause of action for defamation and, further, a prior consent judgment and court statement exonerating the plaintiffs extinguished any cause of action; therefore the claim was properly struck out under Order 18 r.19.
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.
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.