1. Defamation claim by politician and his son over Facebook posts alleging illegal currency transport and flight to Singapore. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 2141
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ROSLAN MAT NOR, J
LIM GUAN ENG & SATU LAGI – Appellant
Versus
WAN MUHAMMAD AZRI WAN DERIS – Respondent
[Guaman Sivil No: WA-23NCvC-31-04-2021]
Petitioner Advocates:Simon Murali,Kok Yuen Lin ,Respondent Advocate: Logen Eskander Abdullah,Norfazilah Jaafar
The court affirmed that social media re-publishers bear the same liability as original authors. It applied the Section 114A Evidence Act presumption for identity and ruled that fair comment requires a basis of true facts and genuine public interest, not mere public curiosity.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 40, 41, 42, 43 and 114A - Defamation Act 1957 - Sections 8 and 9 - Publication of defamatory statements on social media - Identity of publisher - A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on a publication depicting himself as the owner, host, administrator, editor or sub-editor is presumed to have published the contents unless the contrary is proved (Para 37) - Presumption under Section 114A is rebuttable on a balance of probabilities (Para 38) - Previous judgments in other cases are generally irrelevant under Section 43 unless they fall within specific exceptions, and cannot be used to conclusively determine identity in a subsequent case where different accounts/pseudonyms are used (Paras 27-32).
(B) Defamation - Principles of liability - Statements must be read as a whole to determine meaning based on an objective test of how a reasonable person would understand them (Paras 41-42) - A person who re-publishes or shares defamatory content on social media bears the same responsibility as the original author and cannot escape liability by claiming they were merely a disseminator (Paras 74-75).
(C) Defamation - Defences - Justification - Requires substantial truth of the overall sting of the charge; relying on third-party information without verification does not constitute a valid justification (Paras 67-70, 79) - Fair Comment - Must be based on facts truly stated and relate to a matter of public interest; distinction must be made between information that is merely interesting to the public and information that is in the public interest (Paras 86-89).
(D) Damages - Assessment - Compensatory damages serve to vindicate reputation rather than provide a profit; factors for assessment include the gravity of the allegation, extent of publication, and the standing of the plaintiff (Paras 93-101).
Facts of the case:
Two plaintiffs, a former senior government official and his son, sued the defendant for defamation regarding Facebook posts. The posts alleged that the son was detained at an airport for smuggling cash and that the father travelled to a foreign country to resolve the matter. The defendant denied being the owner of the accounts and argued that the posts were based on external news reports and constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendant was indeed the publisher of the statements based on the presumption under the Evidence Act and eyewitness identifications. The statements were held to be defamatory as they implied dishonesty and abuse of power. The defences of justification and fair comment failed because the allegations were proven false by official police reports and were not based on verified facts.
Issues: (i) Whether the defendant was the individual who published the defamatory statements; (ii) Whether the statements were defamatory; (iii) Whether the defendant had a valid defence of justification or fair comment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act to link the defendant to the social media accounts. It ruled that re-publishing defamatory content attracts the same liability as original authorship. The defence of fair comment is unavailable when the underlying facts are false or not proved, and mere public curiosity does not equate to public interest.
Result: Claim allowed. Damages of RM200,000.00 awarded to the first plaintiff and RM80,000.00 to the second plaintiff.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Defendant denies identity as publisher and raises defences of justification and fair comment. (Para 17 , 20 , 21 , 61 , 80 )
3. Defendant liable for defamation; compensatory damages awarded. (Para 40 , 60 , 78 , 92 , 108 )
4. Under what circumstances is a presumption of publication invoked under s.114A Evidence Act?
When a person's name, photograph, or pseudonym appears on a publication depicting them as owner/host/administrator, they are presumed to have published unless contrary proved. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 )
5. When are previous judgments admissible as evidence in a subsequent case?
Previous judgments are not admissible under s.43 unless they fall under ss.40-42; findings of fact in prior cases are not evidence to prove identity in a different publication. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
6. What is the legal test for determining whether a statement is defamatory?
The court must consider the whole article objectively, giving the words the ordinary meaning a reasonable reader would understand, and whether they lower the plaintiff in public estimation. (Para 41 , 42 , 54 , 55 , 56 )
7. What must a defendant prove to succeed on the defence of justification?
The defendant must prove the substantial truth of the defamatory imputations; mere reliance on unverified third-party reports is insufficient. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 78 , 79 )
8. What are the essential elements of the defence of fair comment?
The words must be comments on a matter of public interest, based on true facts, and such that a fair-minded person could honestly make them. (Para 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 )
PENGHAKIMAN
Pengenalan
[1] Kes ini telah difailkan pada 19 April 2020. Pada asalnya, ia didaftarkan di Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Pulau Pinang dengan nombor kes PA-23NCVC-19-10/2020. Ia diperintah oleh Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Pulau Pinang untuk dipindahkan kes ini ke Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Kuala Lumpur pada 23 Mac 2021.
[2] Kes ini didaftarkan di Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Kuala Lumpur pada 19 April 2021 dengan nombor kes WA-23NCVC-31-04/2021. Beberapa notis permohonan difailkan oleh pihak-pihak. Kes ini hanya bermula pada 12 Ogos 2024 di hadapan YA Tuan Eddie Yeo Soon Chye. Perbicaraan penuh tamat pada 5 Disember 2025.
[3] Pada 9 Februari 2026, YA Tuan Eddie Yeo Soon Chye telah meninggal dunia. Oleh itu, kes ini dipindahkan ke mahkamah ini. Kes ini dipindahkan ke mahkamah ini pada 6 Mac 2026. Pihak-pihak sebelum ini telah memfailkan hujahan masing-masing setelah perbicaraan selesai. Pihak-pihak bersetuju untuk mahkamah ini memutuskan kes ini berdasarkan nota-nota prosiding dan hujahan pihak yang telah difailkan.
[4] Adalah tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa YA Tuan Eddie Yeo Soon Chye telah menjalankan perbicaraan ini dengan tekun dan bersungguh-sungguh bagi memastikan kes yang difailkan pada tahun 2021 ini diselesaikan sejurus selepas dikendalikan oleh beliau. Ini adalah sejajar dengan pengiktirafan integriti YA Tuan Eddie Yeo Soon Chye seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Hazlinda Hamzah v. Kumon Method of Learning Centre ; [2006] 3 MLJ 124; [2006] 2 CLJ 933; [2006] 3 AMR 390 di mana YA Hakim Gopal Sri Ram mengatakan seperti berikut:
..."Mr Eddie Yeo was a very senior member of the legal and judicial service. He served the Government with distinction. His integrity is unquestionable..."
[5] Penelitian Mahkamah kepada nota prosiding mendapati bahawa YA Tuan Eddie Yeo Soon Chye telah mengendalikan perbicaraan keseluruhannya dalam Bahasa Melayu. Ia adalah tindakan yang terpuji bagi menzahirkan kedudukan Bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa rasmi yang dinyatakan di bawah art 152 Perlembagaan Persekutuan seperti berikut:
(1) The national language shall be the Malay language and shall be in such script as Parliament may by law provide:
Provided that:
(a) no person shall be prohibited or prevented from using (otherwise than for official purposes), or from teaching or learning, any other language; and
(b) nothing in this clause shall prejudice the right of the Federal Government or of any State Government to preserve and sustain the use and study of the language of any other community in the Federation.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of cl (1), for a period of ten years after Merdeka Day, and thereafter until Parliament otherwise provides, the English language may be used in both Houses of Parliament, in the Legislative Assembly of every State, and for all other official purposes.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of cl (1), for a period of ten years after Merdeka Day, and thereafter until Parliament otherwise provides, the authoritative texts:
(a) of all Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto to be moved in either House of Parliament; and
(b) of all Acts of Parliament and all subsidiary legislation issued by the Federal Government, shall be in the English language.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of cl (1), for a period of ten years after Merdeka Day, and thereafter until Parliament otherwise provides, all proceedings in the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court shall be in the English language:
Provided that, if the Court and counsel on both sides agree, evidence taken in the language spoken by the witness need not be translated into or recorded in English.
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of cl (1), until Parliament otherwise provides, all proceedings in subordinate courts, other than the taking of evidence, shall be in the English language.
(6) In this Article, "official purpose" means any purpose of the Government, whether Federal or State, and includes any purpose of a public authority. Ia juga sej
