Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Fair comment

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 26 Jan 2026

    MOHD SHAHRIM BIN MOHD TAMRIN RAZMAN HAKIMI BIN ABDULLAH @ RAZKUMAR PANEERSELVAM

    Citation
    BC-B53F-3-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BC-B53F-3-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove the impugned publications were defamatory of him: the March 2020 post was a fair comment in response to the plaintiff’s unverified WhatsApp/Facebook message and not mala fide; the July 2020 post referred to MIROS management generally and did not specifically refer to the plaintiff; the August 2020 tweet was a misunderstanding corrected the same day; plaintiff produced no independent witnesses or cogent evidence of reputational damage or malice. Accordingly the claim is dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.

  • 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.

  • 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…

  • 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.

  • 22 Sept 2025

    KOMPLEKS PERKAYUAN KELANTAN SDN BHD HUSAM BIN MUSA

    Citation
    DA-23CY-06-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    DA-23CY-06-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Court found on balance of probabilities that defendant published the three impugned statements, that the shorthand 'KPK' referred to plaintiff, that the statements were false and defamatory, and that defendant failed to prove justification or fair comment and acted with malice; accordingly plaintiff succeeded and was awarded general damages, injunctions, deletion/withdrawal and costs.