Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Responsible journalism

Legal area

Court

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.
9 Nov 2023

1. ) JASON JONATHAN LO 2. ) XXXX 1. ) STAR MEDIA GROUP BERHAD 2. ) XXXX

Citation

BA-23NCvC-32-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-32-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the 16 May article, the 25 May article and the Facebook post were reasonably capable of referring to the plaintiff and were defamatory; the defendants failed to prove justification because they did not verify key material assertions and relied on hearsay and repetition of unproven allegations; qualified privilege (Reynolds) did not apply because the defendants failed responsible journalism factors (inadequate verification, unreasonable haste, failure to publish plaintiff's side); malice particulars were supported and would defeat privilege; plaintiff awarded damages and costs.
21 Aug 2023

ABDUL AZEEZ BIN ABDUL RAHIM Lim Guan Eng

Citation

P-02(NCvC)(W)-1892-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-02(NCvC)(W)-1892-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the respondent’s publications, in context and in their entirety, bore a Chase Level 1 imputation that the appellant was guilty; the respondent failed to prove justification at that level because he relied only on a Notice of Demand and an arrest of a proxy without verification and published hastily; fair comment and qualified privilege also failed due to statements of fact, malice/indifference to truth and failure of responsible journalism; accordingly the High Court finding of justification was set aside and damages and costs were awarded to the appellant.
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.
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.
18 Dec 2020

Manikavasagam a/l Sundaram Sun Media Corp Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-23NCVC-19-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCVC-19-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence and pleadings the impugned words were reports of MACC investigations/arrest and did not, in their natural and ordinary meaning, impute proven guilt or the pleaded defamatory meanings; the 1st Defendant proved justification as to the sting and established qualified privilege/responsible journalism and the plaintiff failed to plead or prove express malice, accordingly the plaintiff's claims are dismissed with costs.
18 Dec 2020

Manikavasagam a/l Sundaram Sun Media Corp Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-23NCVC-19-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCVC-19-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The articles were not defamatory because they truthfully reported the plaintiff's arrest and allegations by MACC and did not impute proven guilt; the defendant established justification (truth of the gist) and qualified privilege/responsible journalism, and the plaintiff failed to plead or prove express malice to defeat the privilege, therefore the plaintiff's claims were dismissed with costs.