Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

TORT OF DEFAMATION – NO MALICE, NO DEFAMATION: POLITICAL COMMENTARY STANDS PROTECTED

1. Summary and Facts

In Lim Guan Eng v Datuk Tan Teik Cheng & Anor [2025] 2 MLJ 791, the Court of Appeal addressed a defamation suit filed by the appellant, Lim Guan Eng, against Datuk Tan Teik Cheng (R1) and The Star Online (R2).

On 7.3.2022, The Star Online published a “Letter to the Editor” authored by R1, then Vice-President of MCA. The article alleged, among other things, that Lim had politicised Chinese education and claimed to allocate RM4 million to SJKC Kuek Ho Yao during the Johor State Election campaign – allegedly with a condition to rename the school. The article ended with a question: “When will he come out to explain this matter?”

Lim Guan Eng claimed the statements were defamatory and sought RM5 million in damages. The High Court dismissed the claim. Lim appealed to the Court of Appeal.

2. Legal issues

• Whether the article, in its natural and ordinary meaning, was defamatory of the appellant.
• Whether the defences of fair comment, justification, and reportage applied.
• Whether the statements were published with malice, which would defeat any available defence.

3. Court Findings

• The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the High Court’s decision, ruled that the statements were not defamatory when read in context. They were inquiries seeking clarification, does not amount to misconduct.
• When read as a whole, the article did not carry a defamatory meaning. It called for clarification rather than making a direct accusation. The final sentence, inviting an explanation from Lim, diluted any defamatory sting.
• The Court found the article to be an expression of opinion on a matter of public interest. The statements were based on facts known to the public at the time and constituted views that a fair-minded person could honestly hold. The defence of fair comment was successfully established.
• The Star Online was entitled to rely on the defence of reportage. The article was published in a neutral and disinterested manner, clearly attributed to R1, and without editorial endorsement. The article was placed in the “Letters to the Editor” section, allowing space for public response – including from Lim himself.
• The Court rejected the argument that political rivalry alone established malice. R1 had made prior inquiries and genuinely believed in what he wrote. There was no evidence of recklessness or dishonesty in the publication.

4. Practical Implications

This decision reinforces several key principles in defamation law. A statement that invites clarification — even if critical — may not be defamatory when fairly expressed. Fair comment remains a robust defence if the opinion is honest and grounded in fact. Reportage protects publishers reporting on ongoing public controversies, provided the report is neutral and does not adopt the allegations. Malice must be proven with more than political animosity — there must be evidence of dishonesty or bad faith.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY