On 15 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 a series of online posts and a published article. The Court ordered Lai to remove the offending content, publish a public apology, and pay RM50,000 in damages to each of the four plaintiffs — a total of RM200,000.
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 the per-plaintiff award model matters
The Court awarded RM50,000 to each of the four plaintiffs separately, totalling RM200,000. This is the correct approach where the defamatory publication injures distinct reputational interests — the corporate plaintiff (LE Global Services itself) and each individual executive whose reputation was separately attacked.
Practitioners should note: in employee-defamation cases involving multiple targets, plead each plaintiff\’s claim separately. Aggregate damages awards understate the harm. The per-plaintiff model captures the distinct reputational injuries.
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 RM-figure damages is increasingly standard. 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
About the author
Dr Chee Hui Bing is a Malaysian Advocate & Solicitor and former medical doctor. Principal of Chris & Partners Advocates & Solicitors, Batu Pahat, Johor. Read full profile.