Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Original Language Pleading Requirement - Defamation cases require that defamatory words be reproduced verbatim in their original language in the pleadings, accompanied by a certified translation into Bahasa Melayu or the court’s language. The original words must be set out precisely as spoken or written, with the translation serving as an aid for court understanding, not a substitute. Failure to include the original language is generally considered fatal to the claim ["
Lim Leong Hock vs Hua Hang Shipping & Trading (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors
"] ["LIM LEONG HOCK vs HUA HANG SHIPPING & TRADING (M) SDN BHD AND ORS - 2025 MarsdenLR 2311
"] ["KARPAL SINGH RAM SINGH vs DP VIJANDRAN - Court Of Appeal
"].Certified Translation - The translation must be certified and accompany the original defamatory words. It is not enough to only plead the translation; the original words in their original language must also be included. The translation's purpose is to meet the national language requirement and assist the court, but it does not replace the need for the original language pleadings ["
Lim Leong Hock vs Hua Hang Shipping & Trading (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors
"] ["LIM LEONG HOCK vs HUA HANG SHIPPING & TRADING (M) SDN BHD AND ORS - 2025 MarsdenLR 2311
"] ["KARPAL SINGH RAM SINGH vs DP VIJANDRAN - Court Of Appeal
"].Language of Publication and Pleading - When defamatory words are in a language other than English, they must be precisely reproduced in their original language in the pleadings, followed by a literal translation into the court’s language. The absence of the original words in the foreign language is considered fatal to the claim ["
DATO SERI TIONG KING SING vs DATUK JUSTINE JINGGUT
"] [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MYS_MARSDENLR_2003_1844) ["MYS_MLRH_2003_2_MLRH_781"].Case Law and Application - Courts have consistently emphasized that both the original defamatory words and their certified translation must be pleaded. For example, in cases involving Chinese, Tamil, or Mandarin defamatory statements, failure to include the original language words results in the claim being invalid or defective ["
LAU KOK GUAN @ LOW KOK GUAN vs CHEAH CHIA HSING - High Court
"] ["MUTHIAH RAMASAMY vs MUGUTHAN VADIVELOO - 2022 MarsdenLR 477
"] ["MERU VALLEY RESORT BERHAD vs HU WEN SHION & ANOR - High Court
"] ["DING MING MING vs LIM SU JIN & ANOR - High Court
"].Exceptions and Flexibility - While the absence of a translation may not always be fatal, the absence of the original words in the foreign language is generally fatal. The translation alone, without the original, is insufficient. Courts have clarified that the exact words in their original language are fundamental for establishing the defamatory nature ["
Lim Leong Hock vs Hua Hang Shipping & Trading (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors
"] ["KARPAL SINGH RAM SINGH vs DP VIJANDRAN - Court Of Appeal
"].Additional Insights - Some cases recognize that the absence of the original language may cause uncertainty or weaken the case, but it is not always automatically fatal if the original words are sufficiently translated and contextualized. Nonetheless, the best practice remains to plead both the original words and their certified translation to ensure compliance and avoid procedural dismissals ["
LIM LEONG HOCK vs HUA HANG SHIPPING & TRADING (M) SDN BHD AND ORS - 2025 MarsdenLR 2311
"] ["MERU VALLEY RESORT BERHAD vs HU WEN SHION & ANOR - High Court Malaya Ipoh
"].Analysis and Conclusion:In Malaysian defamation law, the translation of defamatory words must always be accompanied by the original text in its original language. The court's consistent stance is that the exact words in their original language are essential for establishing the defamatory claim, with the translation serving as an aid. Failure to plead the original language can render the claim defective or fatal, emphasizing the importance of meticulous pleadings that include both the original defamatory words and certified translations.
Imagine you're hit with a in a foreign language—perhaps Mandarin, Hokkien, or Tamil—published online or in print. You rush to court to protect your reputation, only to have your claim dismissed because you forgot to include the exact original words alongside a . This scenario plays out more often than you'd think in jurisdictions like Malaysia, where procedural precision is paramount.
A common legal question arises: What are the rules for translation of defamatory words in original language cases? Generally, courts require the original defamatory words to be reproduced in , accompanied by a into the court's language (typically Bahasa Malaysia or English, depending on the context). This ensures accuracy and allows proper of whether the words are truly defamatory. Failure to comply can jeopardize your case, though it may not always be fatal if corrected promptly.
In this post, we'll break down the legal principles, key case law, consequences of non-compliance, and best practices, drawing from established Malaysian authorities. Note: This is general information based on case law and should not be taken as specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
In involving non-court languages, must set out the exact defamatory words in their original form. This is not optional—it's a foundational rule to preserve the statement's integrity and enable the court to assess its meaning precisely.
As held in
, where the alleged statement was not in the court's language (Malay), the court ruled: the exact words as uttered... must be reproduced in the original language with a in the language of the court, in the absence of which the claim will fail. This principle underscores that without the original, the court cannot reliably determine or meaning.
Similarly, in
, Thomson CJ stated: those words should be set out in their original form in the and in addition a translation of them into the language of the court should be pleaded. The translation must be certified to vouch for its accuracy, preventing disputes over interpretation.
Malaysian and Singaporean courts have consistently upheld this requirement. In
, where words were spoken in Hokkien (and Singapore's court language is English), Chua J emphasized: the alleged statement must be set out in the in the foreign language precisely as spoken and followed by a literal translation. It is not enough to set out the translation without setting out the original or vice versa.
This dual requirement—original plus translation—ensures no loss of nuance. A recent decision in
reaffirmed: Courts require the original in its original language and a into Bahasa Malaysia as per ... The alleged defamatory words as uttered must be reproduced in the and a must be tendered.
Even in cases involving published articles, non-compliance proves costly. In a matter involving a Judge suing over defamatory articles linked to a high-profile murder case, the court found the content defamatory but dismissed the RM100 million claim due to failure to provide certified translations into Bahasa Melayu. The ruling noted: The failure to provide certified translations of defamatory articles into the national language is fatal to a defamation claim, regardless of the merits of the case.
Omitting the original words or a is generally serious. Courts view it as a that hinders . In
, authorities confirmed: it is fundamental that the exact words as uttered... must be reproduced in the original language with a . Lack thereof can lead to dismissal, as the absence of originals is often deemed fatal.
However, it's not always an automatic bar. Thomson CJ in related proceedings noted that failure to do so was not fatal if cured by later obtaining the translation
. Malaysian court rules, as discussed in
, mandate in the national language with certified translations for accuracy, but amendments may be allowed.
In practice, this means early compliance strengthens your position, while delays risk adverse rulings, costs, or strikes out applications.
To safeguard your defamation claim:
These steps align with Orders like O 92 r 1 () and precedents, minimizing dismissal risks.
While focused on Malaysian law, similar principles appear elsewhere. For instance, Indian cases stress precise reproduction of defamatory portions with translations, as in a Tamil Nadu matter quashing proceedings for lack of clear imputations 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 2892. However, Malaysian courts prioritize procedural rigor in .
In , referenced alongside
, the echoed the rule, highlighting consistency across jurisdictions.
Defamation law protects reputations but demands precision. By heeding these rules, litigants can navigate original language challenges effectively. Always seek professional legal counsel tailored to your case, as outcomes depend on specific facts and jurisdiction.
References:1.
- Core principles from Lim Kit Siang, Hassan, Workers' Party.2.
- Court rules on national language .3.
- Fatal non-compliance examples.4.
- Ling Liong Sik on fundamentals.5.
- Translation necessities.6.
- Recent affirmations. #DefamationLaw #LegalTranslation #CourtPleadings
It is sufficient that the original defamatory words are pleaded verbatim in their original language and that a certified Malay translation is properly provided to the court through the relevant documents. ... In that case, the plaintiffs had only pleaded the Bahasa Malaysia translation of the defamatory words, without setting out the original Chinese text. The our held that while pleading both the origina....
It is sufficient that the original defamatory words are pleaded verbatim in their original language and that a certified Malay translation is properly provided to the Court through the relevant documents. ... The certified translation serves the purpose of meeting the national language requirement not as a substitute for the original defamatory words, but as an aid to the Court's understanding. ......
by a translation thereof in the English language, except that the translation for the purpose of O 11, r 6(4) and r 7(1) shall be prepared in accordance with r 6(5) of that Order: Provided that any document in the English language may be used as an exhibit, with or without a translation ... with a certified translation in the language of the Court, in the absence of which the claim will fail. ... (2) For Sabah and Sarawak, any document required for use in pursuance o....
Datuk Dr Ling Liong Sik & Ors [1996] 3 MLRH 820; [1997] 5 MLJ 523: "The authorities are manifest in their approach that it is fundamental that the exact words as uttered (by the 1st defendant in this case) must be reproduced in the original language with a certified translation in the ... are defamatory; (2) the words refer to the plaintiff; and (3) the words were published. ... Language of documents (O 92 r 1) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), any docum....
Datuk Dr Ling Liong Sik & Ors [1996] 3 MLRH 820; [1997] 5 MLJ 523: "The authorities are manifest in their approach that it is fundamental that the exact words as uttered (by the 1st defendant in this case) must be reproduced in the original language with a certified translation in the ... are defamatory; (2) the words refer to the plaintiff; and (3) the words were published. ... the said letter and the words contained in it are defamatory#H....
On the point in issue, Thomson CJ said, at p. 46: As a matter of practice when defamatory words are alleged to have been spoken in a language other than the language of the Court these words should be set out in their original form in the pleadings and in addition a translation ... It was held that if the slander alleged is in a language other than English it must be set out in the statement of claim in the foreign language precise....
It was held that if the slander alleged is in a language other than English it must be set out in the statement of claim in the foreign language precisely as spoken and followed by a literal translation. The absence of the original words in the foreign language in question is fatal. ... In striking out the plaintiff's application, the Court held that the exact words as uttered must be reproduced in the original language with a certi....
On the point in issue, Thomson CJ said, at p. 46: As a matter of practice when defamatory words are alleged to have been spoken in a language other than the language of the Court these words should be set out in their original form in the pleadings and in addition a translation of them into the ... It was held that if the slander alleged is in a language other than English it must be set out in the statement of claim in the foreign languag....
their original form in the pleadings and in addition a translation of them into the language of the Court should be pleaded. ... It was held that if the slander alleged is in a language other than English it must be set out in the statement of claim in the foreign language precisely as spoken and followed by a literal translation. The absence of the original words in the foreign language in question is fatal. ... The trans....
Hua Hang Shipping & Trading (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors , the High Court decided as follows: "[82] Courts require the original defamatory statement in its original language and a certified translation into Bahasa Malaysia as per O 92 r 1 of the Rules of 2012 ... The alleged defamatory words as uttered must be reproduced verbatim in the statement of claim and a certified translation must be tendered. ... Ng Kah Seng @ Ng Kai Seng where the High Court dec....
“TAMIL” (Removal of Sengottaiyan from the party and Minister-ship shows that Sasikala is once again gaining influence in the party and administration. 5. In the impugned complaint, the alleged defamatory portions have been extracted and they are as under together with free translation: “A photo of J. Jayalalitha and Sasikala sitting next to each other and the caption thereon stating “TAMIL” (Jaya and Sasi relationship; thirty years history).
Words which produce, in any given case, appreciable injury to the reputation of another are called defamatory, and defamatory words if false are actionable." In the English case-Scot v. Sampson, 1882 9 QB 491-Justice Cave has defined defamation in simplest way as 'a false statement about a man to his discredit'. This right is a jus in rem, a right absolute and good against the entire world. This definition is smaller yet it encompasses everything about the concept. 11(a.ii).
A person may be guilty of certain acts which expose him to a criminal prosecution for a criminal offence. There is no reason to see as to how that itself operates as a bar for the respondent’s setting in motion the criminal law which is a separate and independent remedy available to an aggrieved person in such a situation. Similarly, a person may use defamatory language against another person who may recover damages in tort against the maker of such a defamatory statement. But the fact that he has been subjected to such a penalty by the Taxing Authorities, may not avail him....
This right is a jus in rem, a right absolute and good against the entire world. Words which produce, in any given case, appreciable injury to the reputation of another are called defamatory, and defamatory words if false are actionable." This definition is smaller yet it encompasses everything about the concept. 8(a.ii). In the English case-Scot v. Sampson, (1882) 9 QBD 491-Justice Cave has defined defamation in simplest way as 'a false statement about a man to his discredit'.
Words which produce, in any given case, appreciable injury to the reputation of another are called defamatory, and defamatory words if false are actionable.” Every man has a right to have his good name maintained unimpaired.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
