The post is still up, the share count is climbing and the trial is a long way off. For a person or business that believes it has been defamed online, the pressing question is whether a court can order the post taken down now, before anyone has given evidence. In Malaysia the answer is yes, but only in clear cases, under a rule that is deliberately more demanding than the test for other interim injunctions.
A stricter rule where speech is concerned
An interim (or interlocutory) injunction is a temporary order that holds the position until trial; applications are made under Order 29 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012. For most disputes the courts use the flexible approach associated with the English case of American Cyanamid. Defamation is different. In The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd v Airasia Bhd (1987) the Supreme Court held that the ordinary approach does not apply to interlocutory injunctions in defamation; the governing rule is the one in the English case of Bonnard v Perryman.
As the rule is usually stated in Malaysia, drawing on Ngoi Thiam Woh v CTOS Sdn Bhd & Ors, the applicant must show in substance four things:
- the words are unarguably defamatory;
- there is no ground for thinking they may be true;
- no other defence might succeed; and
- there is evidence that the defendant will repeat or continue the publication.
If the defendant credibly says that they will prove the words true (the defence of justification) or rely on fair comment, the interim injunction is normally refused and the claimant is left to seek damages at trial. At this stage the court has only affidavits and has not decided whether the statement is true, so restraining speech is treated as exceptional.
How the rule has been applied to Facebook posts
Online, the fourth element is often the easiest to meet: the post is still up and still being shared. The first three are harder. Even so, published practitioner commentary records that the High Court has made mandatory take-down orders pending trial in clear cases.
In Chan Fei Yu & Ors v Siow Rong Jein & Ors, a 2015 High Court decision, the court is reported to have granted an interim injunction ordering Facebook posts to be removed. As summarised in that commentary, the case concerned a Facebook campaign said to be driven by business rivalry, in which co-defendants joined in by tagging and commenting, and the order was made even though justification and fair comment had been pleaded.
In Synergistic Duo Sdn Bhd v Lai Mei Juan, a High Court decision reported in 2017 and also about Facebook, the defendant breached an ad interim injunction — a short-term order that holds the position until the injunction application itself can be fully argued. The breach was treated as showing an intention to repeat the publication.
The approach is still in use. In October 2025 press reports recorded the High Court in Kuala Lumpur granting an injunction after hearing both sides (inter partes) that required Instagram posts to be removed pending trial of a businessman’s suit; that order is interlocutory, no findings have been made on the merits, and the trial was reported as fixed for February 2027.
After trial, injunctions are routine
The high bar applies only before trial. Once a court has found the words defamatory and rejected the defences, a permanent injunction against repetition is a common order. In Seema Elizabeth Isoy v Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong, for example, the Federal Court on 5 June 2024 affirmed an award of RM100,000 and a permanent injunction over a message sent to a WhatsApp group of apartment owners.
Platform reporting and the Online Safety Act 2025
Court is not the only route. Since the Online Safety Act 2025 came into force on 1 January 2026, large licensed platforms have been obliged to operate user-reporting mechanisms. The published summaries of the Act that we have seen do not, however, list defamation among its categories of harmful content, so the Act should not be assumed to provide a statutory take-down route for an ordinary defamation complaint. The platforms’ own reporting tools, and complaints to the Content Forum or the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), remain parallel options.
Practical takeaways
- If you are the target: screenshot the post, record the URL, date and time, and send a take-down demand with a short deadline. Delay undermines any later claim of urgency.
- The clearer the falsity — fabricated documents, doctored photographs, accusations of crime with no basis — the better the prospects. Opinionated criticism and consumer complaints will rarely be restrained before trial.
- Business owners: an unflattering review that states an honest opinion is not a realistic candidate for an interim injunction. One factual reply and the platform’s reporting tool are the proportionate first steps.
- If you are the poster and intend to defend the post as true or as fair comment, say so on affidavit with particulars, and do not re-post while the application is pending.
- Obey any order, including a short-term one. Non-compliance turns a civil dispute into committal proceedings for contempt of court, and is itself evidence of an intention to repeat.
- Group admins who receive a take-down demand or a court order about a post in their group should keep a copy for the record and then remove it promptly.
Matters still pending
As at 19 September 2026 the suit behind the October 2025 Instagram injunction has not been tried. Nothing in this article should be read as a view on its merits.
Authorities and sources
- The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd v Airasia Bhd [1987] 1 MLJ 36 (Supreme Court)
- Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269
- Ngoi Thiam Woh v CTOS Sdn Bhd & Ors [2001] 4 MLJ 510 (High Court)
- Chan Fei Yu & Ors v Siow Rong Jein & Ors (High Court, 2015); Synergistic Duo Sdn Bhd v Lai Mei Juan (High Court, reported 2017)
- Seema Elizabeth Isoy v Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong [2024] 4 MLJ 260; [2024] 5 MLRA 68 (Federal Court)
- Rules of Court 2012, Order 29 rule 1; Online Safety Act 2025
- LHAG, Legal Herald, June 2019 (article on injunctions in defamation); RDS Law Partners, commentary on the threshold for interim injunctions in defamation
- Malay Mail, 15 October 2025 and 2 December 2025
This article is general legal information only and is current as at 19 September 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Court decisions may be appealed and the law may change; please seek advice on your own circumstances. — Chris & Partners, Advocates & Solicitors