Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Slander

Legal area

Court

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.
25 Nov 2025

MUHAMAD NORUL HADI BIN SULAIMAN 1. ) WAN BAHARIN BIN WAN AHMAD @ MOHAMMAD 2. ) ROHANA BINTI AB RASHID

Citation

DA-A53F-4-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DA-A53F-4-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff failed to plead and prove the specific defamatory words and publication; defendants' statements that plaintiff provided traditional healing were supported by evidence and made as employer representatives on a privileged occasion without proven malice, and the medical board's decision was not shown to have been influenced by defendants; therefore plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs RM10,000.00.
14 Oct 2025

SHARUL RIDZUAN BIN AB.SALAM 1. ) ROKIAH BINTI DENAN 2. ) MUSTAFA BIN DENAN 3. ) IBRAHIM BIN DENAN

Citation

BH-B53F-2-10/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BH-B53F-2-10/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the threshold burden to prove the existence and publication of the alleged defamatory utterances by Defendants 2 and 3 because of absence of direct witnesses and contradicting testimony leading to adverse inference; for Defendant 1 the phrase was proved but was factually true and, in context of burial and as understood by a reasonable person, was not defamatory; therefore the defamation claim failed and must be dismissed.
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 Mar 2025

MOHD RIDZUAN BIN MHD ZOLKAFLI Ashari Bin Ahmad

Citation

BA-12B-41-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-41-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the first set of oral statements satisfied publication, reference and defamatory meaning and were actionable; s.5 applied so special damage was not required; the plea of qualified privilege by the defendant was not pleaded and therefore rejected; the second and third communications were either not published or were complaints to authority and not defamatory; appeal allowed, Sessions Court decision set aside, nominal damages RM3,000 and costs RM3,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
21 Jan 2025

ROHANA BINTI IBRAHIM KHADIJAH BINTI ISKANDAR PIHAK TERKILAN Mohamad Yusri bin Abdullah

Citation

BA-23NCvC-67-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-67-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the offending statements were capable of bearing defamatory imputations as to the plaintiff's professional capability and moral character, identification was established, the defendant was liable for publication because the meeting was recorded and saved on a public office channel making publication the natural and probable consequence, but the defendant was not liable for the subsequent WhatsApp republication which broke the chain of causation; damages of RM30,000 and costs RM25,000 with interest were awarded.
31 Jul 2024

1. ) MOHAMMAD REDZUAN BIN OTHMAN 2. ) UNIVERSITI SELANGOR (UNISEL) SHAHARUL ANWAR BIN SHAFIE

Citation

BA-23NCvC-40-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-40-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the defendant's oral and written statements were defamatory, referred to the plaintiffs and were published; the defendant failed to prove justification or fair comment and acted without sufficient investigation such that defences failed; judgment entered for plaintiffs with injunction, mandatory public apology and compensatory damages (RM100,000 and RM50,000) and costs.
10 May 2024

1. ) SATHISH KUMAR AYYASWAMY 2. ) NARESH NAIR A/L SURASAN PEERAN SYED MOHAMED SYED MAHABOOB

Citation

J-02(IM)(NCvC)-954-06/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

J-02(IM)(NCvC)-954-06/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court striking out order because on the face of the SOC the Appellants had pleaded the three elements of defamation (the words, reference to the Appellants and publication to a specific group). The High Court erred by considering merits and requiring the naming of individual members of the group; strike out under Order 18 r.19(1)(a) was inappropriate absent a plainly and obviously unsustainable cause of action.
21 Mar 2024

Ng Ze Xuan 1. ) Tan Sing How 2. ) Lai Phui Khae 3. ) Kalysta Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

BA-23CY-13-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23CY-13-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On balance of probabilities the court found all seven publications capable of bearing defamatory meanings, each referred to the Plaintiff and were published to third parties; Defendants failed to prove justification, fair comment or qualified privilege because they produced no credible evidence of truth, their alleged investigation was unreliable and publications displayed malice and exceeded any legitimate internal need; counterclaim for breach of contract and recovery of bonuses/accounts was unproven; Plaintiff awarded general and aggravated damages with specific monetary awards and injunct…
8 Dec 2023

DEVA YOGI A/P SELVADURAI Om Salmah

Citation

WA-A73-14-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A73-14-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff failed to prove essential element of publication to a third party and failed to prove that the defendant actually uttered the alleged words; plaintiff’s evidence was inconsistent and uncorroborated, police report carried little weight, and no medical proof of emotional harm was produced; therefore the slander claim fails and is dismissed with costs and interest awarded to defendant.