Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Justification (truth) defence

Legal area

Court

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.
23 Nov 2025

NURUL SHUHADA BINTI BASHIR 1. ) SARA NURSHAZANA BINTI SHAHRUDIN 2. ) ROZIYANA BINTI RAMLI

Citation

KA-12B-10-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-12B-10-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Judge's dismissal of the appellant's defamation claim was set aside because the impugned imputations (accusations of zina and distribution of pornographic material) were defamatory per se, provocation does not extinguish liability and justification failed in light of the 1st Respondent's admission that the video was not obscene; the respondents' counterclaim was dismissed for failure to plead and prove defamatory words and injury and the Sessions Judge's finding of malice was unsupported by evidence. The appellant was awarded global damages of RM180,000, interest, costs and injun…
4 Sept 2025

1. ) BUMI SURIA SDN BHD 2. ) DATUK SERI FARHASH WAFA SALVADOR 3. ) DATUK MOHD AMINUDIN BIN MUSTAPHA 1. ) MNOW MEDIA SDN BHD 2. ) MUHAMMAD ABD AR-RAHMAN KOYA

Citation

BA-23NCvC-43-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-43-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to meet the threshold for an interim injunction because the defendants produced credible documentary evidence supporting a defence of justification/fair comment/qualified privilege, the published narratives were not obviously untruthful and the court cannot resolve truth at interlocutory stage; applying the Bonnard principle and American Cyanamid approach, an injunction was inappropriate and therefore dismissed with costs.
3 Mar 2025

GAN PEI LING 1. ) YONG MEE LEE 2. ) Kon Ting Fei [Menuntut Sebagai Pegawai Awam Persatuan Kebajikan Inspirasi Kemanusiaan (Story Of Seed) (No. Pendaftaran: Ppm-016-10-251102016) Bagi Dan Untuk Pihaknya] 3. ) Audrey Yeoh Cheng Gin 4. ) Kon T

Citation

BA-12B-109-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-109-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the totality of the admissible evidence the High Court found on the balance of probabilities that the core imputations (that the respondents were part of a cult and associated conduct) were substantially true; justification succeeded as a complete defence and therefore the defamation claims failed and the Sessions Court judgment was set aside.
20 Dec 2024

ZAUYAH BINTI AHMAD Rozinah Binti Ahmad (Berniaga Di Bawah Nama Dan Gaya 'Warung Dayang Salai Dilinggi' No. Pendaftaran: 200603073238 (Ns0014360-u)

Citation

NA-12BNCvC-15-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-12BNCvC-15-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the impugned social media broadcasts and WhatsApp messages were defamatory, referred to the plaintiff and were published to third parties; the defendant failed to prove justification or provocation and produced no evidentiary basis for her allegations; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to general damages of RM50,000 and costs, and the appeal was dismissed.
11 Nov 2024

1. ) FRANCES JOYCELYN NATHAN 2. ) JAYAPRAGASH AMBLAVANAR 3. ) ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD Siva Subramaniam A/l M. Shanmugam (Menyaman Sebagai Seorang Pemilik Tunggal Yang Beramal Di Bawah Nama Dan Gaya Subramaniam &

Citation

P-02(NCvC)(W)-2112-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-02(NCvC)(W)-2112-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that, on the facts and context, the impugned email was not defamatory in the pleaded libellous sense and, alternatively, that its core assertion (that the lawyer had a tendency to assess claims without insurer-appointed solicitors present) was substantially true and/or protected by qualified privilege. The High Court judgment awarding damages was set aside and the plaintiff's claim dismissed; the plaintiff's separate appeal on quantum failed for lack of proof.
30 Jan 2024

HANISAL KHADIJAH BINTI ABDULLAH 1. ) RAJA AZLINDA BINTI RAJA NARI 2. ) ZARINA JAN BINTI MIRAJAB KHAN 3. ) YASMIN BINTI MIRAJAB KHAN

Citation

AB-12BNCvC-6-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-12BNCvC-6-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal in part, holding that the impugned social media statements (including 'ambil tanpa izin') were defamatory and referred to the plaintiff, that D1 was wrongly absolved by the Sessions Court because her words were equivalent to 'mencuri' and her defences of justification, fair comment and privilege failed (malice present or assertions unproven), and that collective conduct of the defendants caused reputational and pecuniary loss; accordingly the court substituted and awarded specific general damages, allowed special damages, awarded costs and interes…
22 Jan 2024

KAMALRUDIN BIN SANI HAZMAN BIN MOHAMED HALID

Citation

JA-12B-53-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-53-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed in part: High Court found appellant's Facebook post did not refer to or defame the respondent (appellant's post made to trace a scammer using a screenshot he reasonably believed was the scammer) and set aside the Sessions Court judgment; High Court found respondent's own publications were defamatory of the appellant and awarded RM25,000 in general damages to the appellant, ordered an apology and injunctions, and awarded costs of RM20,000 to the appellant (subject to taxation).
17 Jan 2024

1. ) FITTERS Diversified Berhad 2. ) Fitters Marketing Sdn Bhd 3. ) Pyro-Tech Systems Sdn Bhd 1. ) Mohd Roslan Mahayudin 2. ) Saifuddin Nasution Bin Ismail 3. ) Kementerian Perdagangan Dalam Negeri dan Hal Ehwal Pengguna 4. ) Kerajaan Malay

Citation

W-01(NCvC)(W)-82-02/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-01(NCvC)(W)-82-02/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court held that although the phrase "Barang Tiruan PYRO" was capable of bearing a defamatory meaning in context, appellants failed to prove the publications referred to or identified them; initial publications therefore did not defame the appellants and continued republication did not create liability; respondents entitled to rely on justification and qualified privilege; malicious falsehood not proven; appeal dismissed and High Court judgment affirmed with costs to respondents.
27 Jun 2023

ONG JENN CHNAN METROPOLITAN TV SDN BHD

Citation

WA-23NCvC-48-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-48-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On objective construction the broadcast did not sufficiently identify the plaintiff and was not shown to be capable of conveying the imputations alleged; alternatively, the defendant established justification and qualified privilege, therefore the plaintiff's claim fails.