Defamation in Malaysia: Court Rules Against Facebook Reviewer in Confinement Centre Case

By Messrs Lui Bhullar

Defamation in Malaysia: Court Rules Against Facebook Reviewer in Confinement Centre Case

In a recent defamation case in Malaysia, the High Court ruled in favour of a confinement centre operator who sued a former client for defamatory Facebook posts. The judgment highlights the serious consequences of online defamation under Malaysian law and the limited scope of defences such as justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege.

Background of the Defamation Claim

The Plaintiff, a confinement centre, filed a suit against the Defendant for defamatory statements made on Facebook. The statements accused the Plaintiff of poor service, neglect of babies, racial management bias, and unsanitary food conditions. The Plaintiff argued that these remarks damaged their reputation and sought remedies under defamation law in Malaysia.

The Defendant claimed her post was a mere "review" based on her post-natal experience. She also relied on the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege, asserting that the statements were true, made honestly, and in the public interest.

Court’s Findings: Were the Statements Defamatory?

The Court found that the statements were indeed defamatory. Far from being a simple review, the language used suggested misconduct, racial bias, and a lack of integrity by the Plaintiff. According to the Court, these remarks would expose the Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, thus meeting the legal threshold of defamation.

The Court also rejected the Defendant's argument that some parts of the post were positive. Upon closer reading, the Judge ruled that even the "positive" statements were sarcastic and laced with malice, which further weakened the Defendant's position.

Justification: Not All Truths Are Equal

The Defendant failed to prove that the defamatory statements were true in substance. While some facts—such as the centre's 48-hour isolation SOP and food quality—were admitted, several serious accusations were unverified and exaggerated. Under Section 8 of the Defamation Act 1957, partial truth does not protect statements that materially injure the Plaintiff’s reputation.

Additionally, the Court noted that key facts had been deliberately omitted by the Defendant, such as the existence of communal spaces and the provision of mobile devices to contact family and friends.

Fair Comment and Qualified Privilege: Defences Rejected

The Court held that the Defendant failed to properly plead the fair comment defence under Order 78 rule 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012. The impugned statements were presented as facts, not opinions based on proven facts, making this defence unsustainable.

Similarly, the qualified privilege defence was dismissed. The Judge concluded that the Defendant had no legal, social, or moral duty to publish the statements, and no corresponding interest existed between her and the public that would invoke the privilege. More importantly, the element of malice defeated this defence.

Key Takeaways on Defamation Law in Malaysia

This decision is a stark reminder that individuals must exercise caution before posting negative reviews online, especially when such content borders on libel. The case also demonstrates the high bar that must be met to succeed in defences against defamation claims, particularly when malice is inferred.

For anyone accused or affected by defamatory content online, engaging an experienced defamation lawyer in Malaysia is crucial to navigating this complex area of law. If you're unsure how to sue for defamation in Malaysia or need to identify the person behind defamatory online content, consult our legal team today. At Messrs Lui & Bhullar, we combine strong legal strategy with digital expertise to hold online defamers accountable.

📧 Email: general@luibhullar.com

📞 WhatsApp: +60143000960 / +60143000970