LE Global Services v Lai Zhen Yean [2025] : Employee Defamation and Online Posts

In October 2025 the Malaysian High Court delivered judgment in LE Global Services Sdn Bhd & Ors v Lai Zhen Yean. Justice Roz Mawar Rozain found a former employee liable for defaming his ex-employer and three senior executives through online publications. The Court ordered Lai to remove the offending content and publish a public apology, and awarded damages to the plaintiffs.

The facts

The defendant was a former employee of LE Global Services who, after the employment relationship ended, published a series of online posts and an article making allegations against the company and three named senior executives. The plaintiffs sued for defamation. The Court found the allegations were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, not protected by any of the standard defences, and that the defendant had failed to substantiate the truth of his claims.

Why each plaintiff’s claim matters

A single publication can injure distinct reputational interests: those of the company and those of each individual named in it. Each plaintiff has their own cause of action, and the harm to each is considered separately.

Practitioners should note: in employee-defamation cases involving multiple targets, plead each plaintiff’s claim separately so that each person’s reputational injury is properly before the court.

Three lessons for employer-side defamation defence

• Preserve evidence early. Screenshot the offending content with timestamps. Document the reach (post views, share counts, comments) for damages quantification

• Demand takedown and retraction promptly. A letter of demand within days of the publication creates the pleading foundation for aggravated damages if the defendant persists

• Sue all affected parties. Corporate reputation is distinct from individual executive reputation. Each is a separate cause of action with separate damages

Three lessons for departing employees

• Truth is a complete defence — but only if proved. The defendant in LE Global failed to substantiate his allegations. Public ventilation of workplace grievances without documentary proof exposes the speaker to liability

• NDAs and confidentiality clauses survive employment. Even where the allegations are true, breach of confidentiality clauses can give rise to separate causes of action

• The audience matters for damages. An online post seen by hundreds is more damaging than a private complaint to a regulator. Choose the venue with the consequences in mind

The 2025 trend — corporate defamation damages

LE Global is consistent with the broader 2025 trajectory: Malaysian courts are willing to award substantial damages where the publication is online, sustained, and not retracted. The combination of takedown order, public apology and damages is increasingly common. Corporate plaintiffs no longer have to choose between reputation repair and compensation — they can have both.

See also: Online Defamation in Malaysia | Norwich Pharmacal Disclosure | Defamation Lawyer in Malaysia