Back
2026 MarsdenLR 1180
MAHKAMAH TINGGI (KUALA LUMPUR)
ROSLAN MAT NOR, J
Bestinet Sdn Bhd dan satu lagi – Plaintiff
Versus
lwn Bloomberg LP dan lain-lain – Defendant
GUAMAN SIVIL NO WA-23CY-5-02 TAHUN 2026
Ravi Nekoo (Bryan Lui Shein Vieng, Arvinkumar Mohan dan Sophia Au May San bersamanya) (Lui & Bhullar) bagi pihak plaintif-plaintif.
In defamation cases, interim injunctions are granted with extreme caution. They are refused if there is a plausible defence of justification or if the subject matter involves public interest, as the court must balance the claimant's reputation against the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 29 rule 1(2), (2A), (2B), (2BA) and (2C) - Injunctive relief - Ex-parte injunction - Principles governing grant of interim injunction in defamation cases - Need for balance between freedom of speech and reputation - Evidence of urgency. (Paras 10, 11, 26, 32)
(B) Interim Injunction - Principles in defamation actions - Court should exercise exceptional caution in granting interlocutory injunctions - Injunction will not be granted if the defendant raises a defence of justification or privilege unless malice is overwhelming - Court must consider if the statement is unarguably defamatory and whether there are grounds for the defence of justification. (Paras 24, 25, 26, 27)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed an ex-parte application for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing, distributing, or disseminating allegedly defamatory statements. The plaintiffs claimed that the statements caused irreparable harm to their reputation and that the application was urgent. The defendants' statements stemmed from a report involving issues of public interest regarding the recruitment of foreign labour.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the evidence failed to show specific or clear injury to justify an ex-parte injunction. Furthermore, the matters concerned issues of public interest, where the court must be wary of stifling free speech. The court found that it could not be conclusively determined at the interlocutory stage that the defendants lacked a valid defence of justification, and thus the threshold for an emergency injunction was not met.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs met the threshold of 'urgency' to justify an ex-parte injunction, how to balance the right to free speech on matters of public interest against the protection of reputation, and whether the court should determine the merits of the defamation claim at the interlocutory stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that interim injunctions in defamation cases must be granted with extreme caution to protect the fundamental right of free speech. An injunction is only appropriate in the clearest of cases where a jury would inevitably find the matter defamatory and where no plausible defence of justification exists. Since the subject matter involved public interest and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate specific irreparable harm or a lack of potential justification, the court refused the application.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for interim injunction in defamation claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. procedural requirements for ex parte urgent injunctions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. review of evidence and alleged defamatory content. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. balancing free speech against potential harm in libel cases. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. dismissal of injunction due to lack of demonstrated urgency and potential defenses. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
Roslan Mat Nor H:
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
Latar Belakang
[1] Ini adalah permohonan ex-parte oleh Plaintif untuk satu perintah injuksi interim menghalang Defendan Pertama, Kedua, Ketiga, Keempat, Kelima, Keenam, Ketujuh, Kelapan, Kesembilan dan Kesepuluh dari menerbitkan atau menyebabkan diterbitkan, menyebar, menyiarkan atau selainnya menyebarluaskan keseluruhan atau mana-mana kenyataan fitnah yang didakwa oleh Plaintif sehingga pelupusan guaman ini. Plaintif-plaintif telah memfailkan perakuan kesegeraan untuk kes ini didengar awal.
[2] Permohonan ini disokong dengan afidavit sokongan yang antara lain di perenggan 56 afidavit Plaintif Kedua yang diikrarkan pada 11.02.2026 menyatakan asas kepada permohonan ini ialah kenyataan fitnah itu telah diterbitkan oleh lebih daripada 10 orang Defendan. Sifat dan keseriusan dakwaan-dakwaan tersebut menimbulkan risiko nama baik Plaintif-Plaintif tercalar dan kemudaratannya adalah tidak dapat diperbaiki. Selanjutnya, ia akan menjejaskan kepentingan Plaintif-Plaintif.
[3] Plaintif-Plaintif perlu memfailkan permohonan ini dengan segera bagi mengelakkan risiko dan kemudaratan yang akan dihadapi akan bertambah buruk. Plaintif Kedua di perenggan 64 afidavit sokongan tersebut juga mengesahkan telah membuat pendedahan penuh dan jujur mengenai semua perkara yang diketahui oleh Plaintif-Plaintif berkenaan kes ini. Plaintif-Plaintif menyatakan tiada permohonan yang serupa dibuat di mana-mana Mahkamah lain.
[4] Plaintif-Plaintif juga menyatakan dalam afidavit Plaintif Kedua jika permohonan ini tidak dibenarkan ia akan menyebabkan Defendan-Defendan akan terus membuat pernyataan fitnah yang boleh menjejaskan reputasi Plaintif-Plaintif. Plaintif-Plaintif juga menyatakan sebarang pembelaan Defendan-Defendan tidak akan berjaya dan tidak bermerit kerana kenyataan fitnah oleh Defendan-Defendan tidak mempunyai justifikasi dan ianya adalah tidak betul.
Analisa
[5] Pada asasnya, di dalam Writ Saman yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif adalah berkaitan dengan fitnah yang dikatakan berpunca daripada temubual di antara wakil Plaintif Pertama dan Plaintif Kedua atas kapasiti peribadinya. Defendan Pertama atau Defendan Kedua telah menyebabkan diterbitkan satu artikel pada 23.01.2026 yang bertajuk “Everyone Gets a Cut, And Migrant Worker Pay the Price”, la telah menjadi asas kepada tuntutan Plaintif dalam kes ini.
[6] Plaintif-Plaintif memohon gantirugi am, gantirugi teladan, gantirugi khas RM500,000.00 (kepada Defendan Pertama), permohonan maaf daripada Defendan-Defendan. Butiran tuntutan bagi setiap Defendan-Defendan dinyatakan di perenggan 66 Penyata Tuntutan.
[7] Adalah menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa Mahkamah boleh membenarkan injuksi ex-parte. Ini telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di United Kingdom dalam kes Brink’s MAT Ltd v. Elcombe and Others The courts today are frequently asked to grant ex parte injunctions, either because the matter is too urgent to await a hearing on notice or because the very fact of giving notice may precipitate the action which the application is designed to prevent. On any ex parte application, the fact that the court is asked to grant relief without the person against whom the relief is sought having the opportunity to be heard makes it imperative that the applicant should make full and frank disclosure of all facts known to him or which should have been known to him had he made all such inquiries as were reasonable and proper in the circumst
