Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleading requirements in defamation

Legal area

Court

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…
9 Dec 2024

1. ) Zarina Suleymanova 2. ) Ioannis Koromilas 3. ) Antonios Koromilas 1. ) Maria Brenda Osowiecki 2. ) Dentone John Arthur Reseigh 3. ) Oliver Toby Reseigh

Citation

BA-22NCvC-507-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-507-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Claims in negligence by First and Second Defendants (parental supervision and teacher containment claims) disclosed no sustainable cause of action on pleaded facts because no duty was established as pleaded and foreseeability/breach were not made out; the proposed amendment to the defamation claim was disallowed as a late tactical manoeuvre filed on the eve of the strike-out hearing and therefore the defamation particulars were not permitted, leading to allowance of the Defendants’ strike-out applications and costs to Defendants.
16 Mar 2023

SAERAH BINTI DOLLAH 1. ) TAN SRI RAZARUDIN BIN HUSAIN 2. ) DATIN ZAINAH BINTI OTHMAN 3. ) MASLINAH BINTI MAT SAID

Citation

AA-B53F-12-07/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-B53F-12-07/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The strike out application was allowed because (1) the prayers for promotion and reinstatement are non-justiciable as promotion decisions fall within the statutory promotion board scheme and final appeal avenues (Act 604 and Regulations); (2) the claim to be reinstated as treasurer of PERKEP is premature and required exhaustion of internal remedies under the Societies Act; (3) the defamation cause of action was defectively pleaded for failing to set out the exact impugned words; and (4) failure to join the Government of Malaysia as the proper employer was fatal—therefore the statement of clai…
26 Apr 2021

ASPALELA BINTI RAMLY DR. TAWFIQUE HASAN CHOWDHURY

Citation

12A-13-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

12A-13-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Statement of Claim was defective because it reproduced the entire letter without identifying the specific words or pleading the defamatory meanings; consequently it did not disclose a prima facie cause of action in defamation and warranted striking out; further, the letter on its face was an expression of opinion by a director/shareholder about a proposed appointment and the Defendant was entitled to express such views, reinforcing that the pleadings were insufficient to sustain the claim.
19 Jan 2020

Sabapathy a/l Ramasamy Subramaniam a/l Kandasamy

Citation

JA-12B-85-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-85-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the 1st Defendant's oral statements at a press conference were written down by a reporter and published in the newspaper, thereby constituting libel; the statement of claim was not defective because the defamatory words were pleaded verbatim in paragraphs 5 and 6; accordingly the appeal failed and was dismissed.
3 Dec 2019

Hui Chee Soon 1. Kung Fu Tit Tar Sdn. Bhd. & 1 Lagi

Citation

WA-23CY-41-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-41-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the pleadings and supporting affidavits that the impugned Facebook response did not refer to the plaintiff (his name only described a friend of the posting account) and therefore the first essential element of defamation failed; consequently the claim (particularly against the second defendant) was obviously unsustainable and properly struck out under Order 18 r 19, with costs awarded to defendants.

Malaysia Case Law

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

1. ) Zarina Suleymanova 2. ) Ioannis Koromilas 3. ) Antonios Koromilas 1. ) Maria Brenda Osowiecki 2. ) Dentone John Arthur Reseigh 3. ) Oliver Toby Reseigh

SAERAH BINTI DOLLAH 1. ) TAN SRI RAZARUDIN BIN HUSAIN 2. ) DATIN ZAINAH BINTI OTHMAN 3. ) MASLINAH BINTI MAT SAID

ASPALELA BINTI RAMLY DR. TAWFIQUE HASAN CHOWDHURY

Sabapathy a/l Ramasamy Subramaniam a/l Kandasamy

Hui Chee Soon 1. Kung Fu Tit Tar Sdn. Bhd. & 1 Lagi