Announcement

Don't Speak: Injunction in Defamation Actions - A Tool to Fetter Someone's Freedom of Speech?

Share:

Print
28 November 2024

Our Litigation Partner, Idza Hajar Ahmad Idzam together with Senior Legal Associate, Sharanya Visualingam, Legal Associate, Aida Liyana Zainal Rashid and Pupil-in-Chambers, Muhammad Asyraf Hakimi Zaid, had on 21.11.2024 successfully resisted an interim injunction application (“Injunction Application”) filed in a defamation suit.

Brief facts
The Plaintiff had filed a defamation claim against the Defendants for allegedly defaming the Plaintiff in a series of email correspondences as well as on social media. The Plaintiff had subsequently filed an Injunction Application to restrain the Defendants and/or their representatives and/or agents from publishing, disseminating and spreading the alleged defamatory statements.

The Injunction Application was filed by the Plaintiff on the purported basis that:-
 
(1) The alleged defamatory statements are unarguably defamatory;
 
(2) There are no grounds to conclude that the statements may be true;
 
(3) There are no defences which can succeed; and
 
(4) That there is evidence of intention for the Defendants to repeat the alleged defamatory statements.
 
It was the Defendants’ submission that the Injunction Application should not be allowed because, inter alia, the Defendants have pleaded the defence of justification and fair comment on a matter of public interest in making the alleged defamatory statements.

Decision of the Court
The Court dismissed the Injunction Application and awarded costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants.

The Court also held, amongst others, that:
 
(1) The alleged defamatory statements are not unarguably defamatory;

 

(2) The Court could not, at this juncture and at the outset confirm whether the alleged defamatory statements are true or untrue;

 

(3) The Court acknowledged that the Defendants had pleaded the defence of fair comment and justification, in which the Court then made a reference to the case of Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Co v Beall [1882] 20 Ch D 501, whereby it was held that no injunction can be granted in the event that such defences are raised;

 

(4) The Court finds no evidence that there is an intention on the part of the Defendants to re-publish the alleged defamatory statements against the Plaintiff; and

 

(5) The Court could not find any malicious intent in the Defendants publishing the alleged defamatory statements at this juncture.

Key Takeaways
This decision underscores the principle that courts are typically cautious in granting interim injunctions in defamation cases, as such orders risk impinging on an individual’s freedom of speech. The ruling was appropriately influenced by the Supreme Court decision in The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd v AirAsia Bhd [1987] 1 MLJ 36, which emphasized that courts should only issue interim injunctions in the clearest of cases. Moreover, it confirms that the standard principles for granting injunctions, as established in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, do not apply to interim injunctions in defamation claims.

For more insights into this area of law, please contact our Litigation Partners:
P Jayasingam
Wong Keat Ching
Thavaselvi Pararajasingam
Idza Hajar Ahmad Idzam
Nan Muhammad Ridhwan Rosnan
Nur Syafinaz Vani Abdullah

Please email your details to [email protected] if you would like to subscribe to our Knowledge Centre.

Let's Connect!
➭ LINKEDIN: Zul Rafique & Partners
➭ INSTAGRAM: @zrplaw