Four elements: a defamatory statement, meaning one that lowers you in the estimation of right-thinking members of society; reference to you, by name, photo or context; publication to at least one third party; and actual or likely injury to your reputation. Online posts count as libel, which is actionable without proof of special damage.
Yes. Malaysian law applies the same principles online. A Facebook post, Instagram caption, X thread, TikTok video, Google review, blog comment or WhatsApp message can be defamatory. A message in a private WhatsApp group is actionable if it is defamatory, refers to you and is read by at least one other member. Online posts may also engage section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.
Libel is defamation in a permanent form, such as writing, broadcasts and online posts. Slander is defamation in a passing form, such as spoken words or gestures. Libel is actionable without proof of special damage. Slander generally needs proof of special damage, with narrow exceptions in the Defamation Act 1957, for example imputing a crime or unfitness for a profession.
Screenshot the post with the URL and date visible, along with the poster's profile. Then a letter of demand can be sent requiring takedown, retraction and an apology; where the poster is identifiable, this often leads to takedown within days. If the poster is anonymous, a Norwich Pharmacal disclosure order can be sought against the platform to identify the account holder.
Through a Norwich Pharmacal disclosure order, recognised in Malaysia since First Malaysia Finance Bhd v Dato' Mohd Fathi Haji Ahmad [1993] 2 MLJ 497. The application is made by Originating Summons in the High Court, for an order compelling a third party, usually the platform operator and then the local internet service provider, to disclose who is behind the account. Pre-action discovery under Order 24 rule 7A is another route.
Yes, but only in clear cases. The Supreme Court in New Straits Times Press v Airasia (1987) applied the stricter rule in Bonnard v Perryman, not the usual American Cyanamid approach. The words must be unarguably defamatory, with no ground to think they may be true, no other defence likely to succeed, and evidence the publication will continue. Platform reporting and MCMC complaints are parallel options.
The Defamation Act 1957 provides justification, meaning the statement is substantially true, and fair comment, now often called honest opinion: a comment on a matter of public interest, based on provable facts, that a fair-minded person could honestly hold. Qualified privilege protects statements made under a legal, social or moral duty to a person with a matching interest, if there is no malice.
If the post was published, meaning read, in Malaysia and you suffered harm to your reputation in Malaysia, the Malaysian courts have jurisdiction over the claim. Serving the claim on a foreign defendant needs the court's leave under Order 11 of the Rules of Court 2012.
Facing a similar situation? WhatsApp us a short summary. Please do not send confidential documents until we confirm we can act for you.
Speak to us in English, Bahasa Malaysia or 中文. Please do not send confidential documents until we confirm we can act for you.
