HOME

“Both counsel brought to bear considerable industry and skill in navigating what is, at its heart, a modest domestic dispute but one which raised questions of some technical and statutory complexity. Their written and oral submissions were thorough and well-crafted, their cross-examinations were pointed without being discourteous, and the quiet wit that each occasionally introduced into the proceedings, not least when this Court itself had cause to observe the alarming pace of inflation in kitchen cabinet prices and the law of Newton's physics, served as a timely reminder that the pursuit of justice need not always be a humourless endeavour. This Court is grateful for their assistance.” - Per Roz Mawar Rozain J in Leng Wie Mun v. Saeed Ali Magad [2026] CLJU 663

“The true nature and context of the Derbyshire principle is res ipsa loquitur from the parties of the English case itself. The case of Derbyshire involved a Local Authority (not an individual person) claiming for defamation. There are no fact, context, and reason for the House of Lords in Derbyshire to consider whether or not any individual person holding governmental office may or may not maintain a defamation action. The House of Lords was posed with the question, whether or not a Government (the Derbyshire County Council) as an elected body can sue its own electorate for defamation. And the House of Lords answered that question in the negative (in that a governmental body cannot sue its citizens for defamation). Somehow, over the years, and through many attempts at legal acrobatics, the true and simplistic essence of the Derbyshire principle had been lost in translation. On the extreme contrary to this misconception, the House of Lords made a clear and express finding that the inhibition against governmental bodies does not apply to prohibit individuals in governmental offices from maintaining a defamation action:

A publication attacking the activities of the authority will necessarily be an attack on the body of COUNCILLORS which represents the controlling party, or on the EXECUTIVES who carry on the day-to-day management of its affairs. If the INDIVIDUAL reputation of any of these is wrongly impaired by the publication any of these can HIMSELF bring proceedings for defamation.

(emphasis added)”

“However, in the same manner the House of Lords in Derbyshire was aware some 33 years ago, we are equally aware that attacks against the Government can at times fall or slip into ad hominem and personal attacks against persons in office (not just the Government), be it on personal matters or in his or her exercise in office. Especially considering the sensationalist journalism and the boom of social media and the internet in modern times (coupled with Malaysia's decades of political divide and politicking on race, ethnicity, and religion), it is infinitely more compelling for prominent individuals from competing political spectrums to throw underhanded jabs against persons in office and for the Malaysian people to receive and spread the same attacks like wildfire. Thus, aside from the importance of freedom of speech and the liberty to criticise the Government, it is equally important that the court must remain vigilant to not allow loose-lipped defamation and slander to be thrown at the faces of individuals in governmental positions or offices.” - Per Azimah Omar FCJ in Yeoh Tseow Suan v. Musa Hassan [2026] 3 CLJ 593; [2026] CLJU 82