Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Reportage

  • 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.

  • 10 Feb 2025

    MOHD KHAIRUDDIN BIN AMAN RAZALI SIN CHEW MEDIA CORPORATION BHD

    Citation
    BB-A53CY-7-10/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BB-A53CY-7-10/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    On the balance of probabilities the publication, read in context, was not defamatory of the plaintiff; the defendant established Lucas-Box justification and related defences (reportage/qualified privilege) and acted without malice; plaintiff failed to prove the essential defamatory meaning and malice; claim dismissed and costs awarded.

  • 2 Jul 2021

    MKINI DOT COM & 3 ORS RAUB AUSTRALIAN GOLD MINING SDN BHD

    Citation
    02(f)-61-08/2018(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
    Court
    f
    Case number
    02(f)-61-08/2018(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

    Reportage is part of the Reynolds/qualified privilege family and need not be pleaded as a separate sui generis defence; the High Court correctly found the publications related to matters of public interest and that appellants either carried out responsible journalism or neutrally reported press conferences (reportage); Court of Appeal erred in imposing rigid pleading and independent‑expert verification requirements and in finding adoption/embellishment; therefore appeal is allowed, Court of Appeal orders set aside and High Court judgment restored.

  • 21 Jun 2021

    CITY TEAM MEDIA SDN BHD SM PERIASAMY RAJESH MANIMARAN TAN SRI DATUK NADRAJA A/L RATNAM

    Citation
    W-02(NCVC)(W)-427-02/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    NCVC
    Case number
    W-02(NCVC)(W)-427-02/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court affirmed the High Court that the publications were defamatory, the appellants failed to prove justification and were not entitled to qualified privilege because publications were unproven, one-sided and published with reckless disregard/ malice; accordingly liability was affirmed and general damages were substituted at reduced sums.