Chris & Partners Advocates & Solicitors

Defamation Suit

Defamation Suit

Defamation matters in Malaysia often involve both legal and reputational considerations. Our lawyers assist with slander and libel cases, providing clear guidance and reliable representation to help you address reputational concerns and explore appropriate avenues for resolution.

Helping safeguard your rights and navigate potential claims for compensation.

“At Chris & Partners Advocates & Solicitors, we provide legal services for defamation cases. If someone has made false or damaging statements about you—online, in the media, or in public—we can assist in addressing the situation. Our team will guide you through the process of filing a defamation suit, helping you safeguard your rights and explore options for compensation for any harm suffered.

Why Choose Us For Your Defamation Case ?

Example of Defamation

Each of these examples demonstrates how false statements can harm a person’s or organization’s reputation, which may lead to a defamation claim.

01.

False Statements in Media

02.

Social Media Posts

03.

Slander in Conversations

04.

False Online Reviews

05.

Defamatory Emails

FAQs

1. What four elements must a claimant prove?

(1) a defamatory statement; (2) reference to the plaintiff; (3) publication to at least one third party; and (4) actual or likely injury to reputation.

Three years from the date of publication (Limitation Act 1953, s 6).

Yes—so long as the defendant proves the substance of the statement is true (s 8 Defamation Act 1957).

A statement of comment, on a matter of public interest, based on provable facts, and one that a fair-minded person could honestly hold.

Statements made in parliamentary or judicial proceedings are completely immune.

It protects statements made on occasions where the maker has a legal, social or moral duty to speak and the recipient a corresponding interest, provided the statement is not malicious.

Yes. In April 2025 the Bar Council set up a Defamation Law Reform Committee recommending a single-publication rule, a statutory public-interest defence and anti-SLAPP cost sanctions.

It creates a rebuttable presumption that the account-holder or website owner published the defamatory content.

Yes—s 233 was amended to include synthetic-media offences and higher fines of up to RM 500 000.

Yes, once it is notified of defamatory material and fails to act promptly, it may incur secondary liability.

Courts have recognised it, but intermediaries must show lack of knowledge and reasonable care in moderating content.

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation aims to silence criticism; the Bar’s reform paper proposes early dismissal procedures and cost-shifting to curb SLAPPs.

The plaintiff must show a strong prima-facie case and risk of irreparable harm, per Utusan (FC 2016).

General (reputation), aggravated (malice) and occasionally exemplary; the Court of Appeal limited exemplary awards in Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim (2023).

Yes if the material is downloaded in Malaysia and the plaintiff’s reputation here is harmed.

The judge determines both the natural and, where pleaded, innuendo meaning as a preliminary issue.

Only if the group is small enough that the words can reasonably be taken to refer to each member.

Yes, but they must prove actual or likely financial loss.

Under s 7(3) the court treats a timely and sincere apology as mitigation.

Not statutory, but Calderbank-type offers influence cost orders.

Not yet; it is included in the draft Reform Bill but has not become law.

The proposal mirrors the UK test, but Malaysia still operates common-law de-minimis principles until legislation is passed.

Yes—scurrilous allegations against the judiciary can attract concurrent contempt proceedings.

If they exercise editorial control, liability follows once they are aware of the defamatory post and fail to remove it.

Through a Norwich-Pharmacal-style discovery order or CMA s 268 warrant compelling service-provider disclosure.

Yes, under Penal Code ss 499-502, though prosecutions are rare.

Yes, in exercise of its equitable powers, especially where damages alone are insufficient.

Yes—untrue disclosures may also breach the Personal Data Protection Act 2010.

It can, but usually prefers targeted injunctions against specific URLs or posts.

Yes—if the avatar clearly identifies a real person, traditional defamation rules apply, a point noted in the 2025 Bar reform discussion paper.  

Scroll to Top