Cher Guan Chun v LIM Chan Hon (BA-23CY-19-08/2025)

CHER GUAN CHUN (No K/P: 720224-01-5785)

CHER INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD (No Syarikat: 201101024660 [952796-V]) … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN LIM CHAN HON (No K/P: 810912-14-5697) … DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] Enclosure 14 is the Notice of Application dated 22.10.2025 by the Defendant to transfer proceedings from the High Court to the Sessions Court pursuant to Order 57 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012. [2] After perusal of the cause papers and upon hearing submissions by the counsels, I have allowed Enclosure 14 based on the reasons which I shall explain hereafter. Background facts [3] The second plaintiff (“the 2nd Plaintiff”) is a company and is in the business selling tyres, components, scraps and waste. [4] The first plaintiff (“the 1st Plaintiff”) is a businessman and is a director and shareholder of the 2nd Plaintiff. The 1st Plaintiff is also a director and shareholder in several other companies which is in the business of motor vehicles and oil palm plantation. [5] The Defendant is the director and majority shareholder of Fatty Tyre Sdn Bhd (“Fatty Tyre”). The Defendant is also a director and shareholder in some other companies which is also in the business of tyres and motor vehicles. [6] On 7.4.2025, Fatty Tyre purchased tyres from the 2nd Plaintiff. However, Fatty Tyre failed to pay the outstanding sum to the 2nd Plaintiff. The 2nd Plaintiff then commenced legal action against Fatty Tyre. [7] The Plaintiffs then alleged that the Defendant had made defamatory statements as follows: -

(a) On 29.5.2025, the Defendant forwarded voice messages to the 2nd Plaintiff’s employee (“the 1st Employee”) which contain impugned words (“the Impugned Words No 1”);

(b) On 7.6.2025, the Defendant sent voice messages to the 1st Employee which contain impugned words (“the Impugned Words No 2”);

(c) On 11.6.2025, the Defendant forwarded a Facebook post and sent WhatsApp voice messages to the 1st Employee which contain impugned words (“the Impugned Words No 3”);

(d) On 29.5.2025, the Defendant forwarded voice messages to another of the 2nd Plaintiff’s employee (“the 2nd Employee”) which contains impugned words (“the Impugned Words No 4”);

(e) On 29.5.2025, the Defendant sent voice messages to the 2nd Employee which contains impugned words (“the Impugned Words No 5”);

(f) On 7.6.2025, the Defendant sent voice messages to the 2nd Employee which contains impugned words (“the Impugned Words No 6”);

(g) On 10.6.2025, the Defendant published impugned words on the Defendant’s Facebook page (“the Impugned Words No 7”);

(h) On 10.6.2025, the Defendant uploaded a photo on the Defendant’s Facebook page (“the Impugned Words No 8”);

(i) On 12.6.2025, the Defendant published impugned words on a Facebook private group page (“the Impugned Words No 9”);

(j) On 13.6.2025, the Defendant published impugned words on another Facebook private group page (“the Impugned Words No 10”);

(k) On 13.6.2025, the Defendant published impugned words on another Facebook private group page (“the Impugned Words No 11”);

(l) By posting the Impugned Words No 11, the Defendant caused to be published a comment by a user which contains impugned words (“the Impugned Words No 12”);

(m) On 14.6.2025, the Defendant published impugned words on the 1st Plaintiff’s Facebook posts (“the Impugned Words No 13”);

(n) On 17.6.2025, the Defendant published impugned words on the Facebook page of China Press (“the Impugned Words No 14”);

(o) On 17.6.2025, the Defendant replied to a comment by a user which contains impugned words (“the Impugned Words No 15”);

(p) On 17.6.2025, the Defendant replied to a comment by a user which contains impugned words (“the Impugned Words No 16”);

(q) On 17.6.2025, the Defendant replied to a comment by another user which contains impugned words (“the Impugned Words No 17”). [8] The Plaintiffs state that the Defendant has committed libel and slander against the Plaintiffs by publishing and/or causing to be published the Impugned Words No 1, the Impugned Words No 2, the Impugned Words No 3, the Impugned Words No 4, the Impugned Words No 5, the Impugned Words No 6, the Impugned Words No 7, the Impugned Words No 8, the Impugned Words No 9, the Impugned Words No 10, the Impugned Words No 11, the Impugned Words No 12, the Impugned Words No 13, the Impugned Words No 14, the Impugned Words No 15, the Impugned Words No 16 and the Impugned Words No 17 (hereinafter collectively called “the Defamatory Statements”). [9] The Plaintiffs contend that, by reason of the publication of the Defamatory Statements, the Plaintiffs had been injured in reputation. [10] The Plaintiffs are now claiming against the Defendant general damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages for libel and slander. Summary of the Defendant’s case (in supporting Enclosure 14) [11] The Defendant is applying to transfer the proceedings from the High Court to the Sessions Court. The Defendant submits that the damages sought falls within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and that the Plaintiffs’ action of filing the case in the High Court amounts to an abuse of the Court’s process. [12] The Defendant submits that the current trend for the quantum of damages awarded in defamation case are within the range of RM 75,000.00 to RM 300,000.00 only. The Defendant states that the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs would not exceed the amount of RM1 million. [13] Although the 2nd Plaintiff had argued that they have suffered a decline in revenue because of the Defamatory Statements made, the Defendant states that the decline in revenue cannot be solely attributed to the Defendant’s conduct alone. Other factors such as economic factors must be considered. [14] The Defendant also points out that although the 2nd Plaintiff’s financial statement (for the financial year ended 31.7.2024) show a huge revenue of RM 80,351,320.00, however, the actual profit before tax is only RM 5,143,268.00. Summary of the Plaintiffs’ case (in opposing Enclosure 14) [15] The Plaintiffs submit that there is a delay in the filing of Enclosure 14. Enclosure 14 was only filed after the Plaintiffs filed its reply to the defence. The Plaintiffs argue that the filing of Enclosure 14 is only an afterthought by the Defendant to escape liability from paying a higher sum of damages. [16] The Plaintiffs state that both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant are in the same industry. The Defendant had intentionally published the Defamatory Statements with an intention to injure the Plaintiffs’ reputation to cause the Plaintiffs’ revenue to drop. [17] The Plaintiffs state that the sales revenue of the 2nd Plaintiff had been severely affected after the publication of the Defamatory Statements. For example, the sales revenue of the 2nd Plaintiff had increased in May 2025 but the revenue immediately dropped in June 2025 after the publication of the Defamatory Statements. [18] The Plaintiffs rely on the cases of Dr Zakir Abdul Karim Naik v Ramasamy s/o Palaniasamy [2024] 9 MLJ 881 and Lim Guan Eng v Mahiaddin bin Md Yassin [2024] MLJU 2904 and argue that the current sentencing trend for the quantum of damages can be summarised as follows: - General Damages RM 200,000.00 to RM 350,000.00 for each defamatory word Aggravated Damages RM 20,000.00 to RM 50,000.00 for each defamatory word Exemplary Damages RM 20,000.00 to RM 50,000.00 for each defamatory word [19] Therefore, the Plaintiffs submit that it is in the interest of natural justice for the Plaintiffs to be heard and given a chance to prove their case against the Defendant and claim damages exceeding RM 1,000,000.00 Findings by the Court [20] In opposing Enclosure 14, the Plaintiffs had relied on the authorities of Dr Zakir Abdul Karim Naik v Ramasamy s/o Palaniasamy [2024] 9 MLJ 881, where damages amounting to RM 1,450,000.00 was awarded; and Lim Guan Eng v Mahiaddin bin Md Yassin [2024] MLJU 2904, where general damages amounting RM 1,050,000.00 was awarded. [21] In Dr Zakir Abdul Karim Naik v Ramasamy s/o Palaniasamy [2024] 9 MLJ 881, general damages of RM 200,000.00 were awarded for each defamatory publication; compensatory damages of RM 20,000.00 were awarded for each defamatory publication; aggravated damages of RM 20,000.00 were awarded for each defamatory publication; and exemplary damages of RM 50,000.00 was awarded for each defamatory publication. In Lim Guan Eng v Mahiaddin bin Md Yassin [2024] MLJU 2904, general damages of RM 350,000.00 were awarded for each defamatory publication. [22] The Plaintiffs had also relied on the case of MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato’ Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Other Appeals [1995] 2 MLJ 493, referring to the observation of the late Justice Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he was then), in assessing quantum of damages: - “With that, I now turn to consider the approach taken by the learned judge in this case, who, when he came to assess damages, had this to say ([1995] 1 MLJ 39 at p 63): In my opinion, each case must be judged on its own particular facts and on its own merits. In the present case a very serious libel has been perpetrated on the plaintiff. The defendants calculated that the prospect of material advantage from publishing the said articles outweighed the prospects of material loss. Therefore, bearing in mind the principles applicable in the assessment of damages and in considering all the various factors, including the following:

Syed Husin Ali v Syarikat Penchetakan Utusan Melayu Berhad & Anor [1973] CLJU 146 Lecturer of the University of Malaya $ 6,500 With costs

Datuk Harris Mohd Salleh v Abdul Jalil Ahmad & Anor [1983] CLJ 521 (Rep) Chief Minister of Sabah 100,000 With costs

Dato' Musa Hitam v S.H. Al Attas & Ors [1991] 2 CLJ (Rep) 487 Politician 100,000 With costs

Tun Datuk Patinggi Haji Abdul Rahman (affirmed Former Chief Minister & former Governor 100,000 With costs Ya'kub v Bre Sdn Bhd & Ors [1996] 1 MLJ 393 Bre v Tun D. Patinggi [2005] 2 CLJ 645 (CA) by CA in 2005) for the State of Sarawak

Ling Wah Press (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan Sri Dato’ Vincent Tan Chee Yioun [2000] 4 MLJ 77 FC Group chief executive officer of Berjaya Group Bhd 7,000,000 With costs

Liew Yew Tiam & Ors v Cheah Cheng Hoc & Ors [2001] 2 CLJ 385 Firm of solicitors 100,000 No costs

Karpal Singh Ram Singh v DP Vijandran [2001] 3 CLJ 871 Lawyers / politicians 100,000 (half costs of appeal)

Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Bhd & Ors v Tjanting Business / manufacturer 250,000 With costs Handicraft Sdn Bhd & Anor [2005] 1 CLJ 71

Chin Choon v Chua Jui Meng [2005] 2 CLJ 569 Deputy Minister for International Trade and Industry 200,000 No order

Datuk Harris Mohd Salleh v Datuk Mohd Shafie Hj Apdal & Ors [2009] 2 CLJ 682 (affirmed by CA) Politician & former Chief Minister of Sabah 50,000 100,000

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v The New Straits Times Press

(M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2010] 5 CLJ 301 Former Deputy PM and former Minister of Finance 100,000 20,000

Dato' Hassan Mohamed Ali v Tengku Putra Tengku Awang & Yang Lain [2010] 7 CLJ 856 Politician 50,000 100,000

Chong Siew Chiang v Ng Kim Ho & Anor [2011] 6 CLJ 62 Lawyer / politician 100,000 (D1) 50,000 (D2) With costs

Dato' Dr Tan Chee Khuan v Chin Choong Seng [2011] 8 CLJ 574 Doctor / Consultant / Art Businessman 150,000 10,000

Kumarasamy Naciappan v The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd [2012] 1 LNS 997 Businessman 120,000 15,000

Lim Guan Eng v Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd [2012] 2 CLJ 619 Chief Minister, MP, State Assemblyman, Secretary-General 200,000 25,000

Harry Isaacs & others v Berita P1: Owner of private school 150,000 + 50,000 Harian Sdn Bhd [2012] CLJU 1359 P2: Private school P3: Law firm 75.000 (pay to P1 &

50.000 +

25.000 (pay to P3)

Tan Sri Dato' Lim Guan Teik v Tan Kai Hee [2013] 10 CLJ 771 Chairman of Business Board of Directors 200,000 100,000

Abdul Razak Mohd Noor v Wan Muhammad Azri Wan Deris WA- 23NCVC-17- 01-2012 Businessman / CEO 500,000 50,000

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Wan Muhammad Azri Wan Deris [2015] 2 CLJ 557 Politician 800,000 50,000

Jahara Hamid v Lim Guan Eng [2015] 6 CLJ 328 Chief Minister, MP, State Assemblyman, Secretary-General 500,000 40,000

Dato' Ahmad Rejal Arbee & Anor v Mahfuz Omar [2015] 6 CLJ 149 Member of Parliament and senior member of PAS 110,000 With costs

Sistem Televisyen Malaysia Bhd & Ors v Nurullah Zawawi & Anor [2015] 9 CLJ 357 P1: Celebrity P2: Law lecturer 80,000 (reduced from RM 250,000 awarded by HC) -

Dato' Ahmad Sudin v Dato' Ariffin Man [2016] 1 LNS 136 Kedah State Assemblyman 100,000 (general damages) 50,000 (aggravated damages) 30,000

Lim Guan Eng v New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd [2017] 9 MLJ 622 Chief Minister, MP, State Assemblyman, Secretary-General 300,000 35,000

Nurul Izzah binti Anwar v. Tan Sri Khalid bin Abu Bakar & Anor [2018] 7 CLJ 622 Member of Parliament and Vice-President of PKR RM 400,000 (D1) RM 600,000 (D2) 80,000

Datuk Harris Mohd Salleh v Datuk Yong Teck Lee & Anor [2018] 1 CLJ 145 FC Former Chief Minister 600,000 200,000

Warisan Pinang Sdn Bhd & Ors v Carolyn Khor Tsai Chen [2023] CLJU 1560 Communication Chief of Wanita Keadilan of PKR 100,000 (to P1 and P2 each) 80,000 (to P3) 40,000

Sri Lai Cha Suang @ Jessy Lai & Anor v Lim Lip Eng P1: Businessman P2: 500,000 (to P1) 250,000 [2023] CLJU 705 Company 1,500,000 (to P2)

Dr Zakir Abdul Karim Naik v Ramasamy Palanisamy & Another Case [2024] 3 CLJ 731 Religious figure 1,450,000 70,000

Dato' Foo Ming Lam & Anor v Wee Meng Chee [2024] CLJU 436 P1: Businessman P2: Company 350,000 50,000

Jason Jonathan Lo v Star Media Group Berhad & Ors [2024] CLJU 470 Celebrity 200,000 40,000 [26] In this current suit, the 1st Plaintiff is a businessman; and the 2nd Plaintiff is a company. The trend for the quantum of damages awarded to businessman / company based on the summary of cases would show the following awards: -

(a) Ling Wah Press (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan Sri Dato’ Vincent Tan Chee Yioun (2000): RM 7,000,000.00;

(b) Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Bhd & Ors v Tjanting Handicraft Sdn Bhd (2005): RM 250,000.00;

(c) Jessy Lai v Lim Lip Eng (2023): RM2,000,000.00;

(d) Dato’ Foo Ming Lan v Wee Meng Chee (2024): RM 350,000.00. The Defendant has highlighted that the damages of RM 2,000,000.00 awarded by the High Court in Dato’ Sri Lai Cha Suang @ Jessy Lai & Anor v Lim Lip Eng [2023] 1 LNS 705 was slashed to RM 75,000.00 upon appeal to the Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No W-02(W)-434-03/2023. [27] Therefore, it is quite clear that the current trend for the quantum of damages awarded in defamation cases, in particular for businessman / company does not exceed RM 1,000,000.00. [28] Although the Plaintiffs had argued that damages ought to be awarded for each of the Defamatory Statements (the Impugned Words No 1 to No 17), I would adopt the reasonings of Su Tiang Joo J in Sundra Rajoo Nadarajah v Thirilogachandran @ Jayasangar Shamugasundaram [2025] CLJU 771 as follows: - “Decision on damages [114] On the quantum of damages for both general and aggravated, it is settled that aggravated damages is part of general damages. However, I set out the above aggravating factors which I take into account for purposes of making a rolled-up award which is an award of both general and aggravated damages. [115] Although the plaintiff had sought an award for each of the two publications, and that any re-publication is a treated as a fresh libel, I take into account that the contents of the offending article is the same in both the publications. This to my mind should be taken into account when assessing the quantum of damages.” [29] I am satisfied that based on the recent court decisions in Malaysia, the trend for defamation damages has shifted away from “mega-awards” towards a more moderate and reasonable sum. Damages in defamation have always been intended to compensate, not to enrich. [30] In reaching my decision, I also took into cognisance the Court of Appeal’s obiter dictum in Mohd Rafizi bin Ramli v Dato’ Seri Dr Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail & Anor [2020] 1 CLJ 498: - “[7] The High Court in all defamation action should at the case management stage itself direct the matter to be transferred to the sub-courts, if the quantum on the subject matter of dispute will be within sub-ordinate court limit. (See O. 57 of the Rules of Court 2012). Abusing High Court process in not filing matters in the sub-courts, when the sub-court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter must be taken by the High Court seriously. Trial courts should warn counsels that costs order may be made against counsel personally if ultimately the courts' jurisdiction has been abused.” Conclusion [31] Accordingly, for the reasons above, Enclosure 14 is allowed with costs fixed at RM 5,000.00. Dated the 26th day of February 2026. (SEOW HOCK PENG) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR Counsel: For the Plaintiffs : Choo Shi Jin (Messrs Firoz Julian) For the Defendant : Yeoh Jit Wei (Messrs JW Yeoh & Fenn) Case Reference:

Dr Zakir Abdul Karim Naik v Ramasamy s/o Palaniasamy [2024]

Lim Guan Eng v Mahiaddin bin Md Yassin [2024] MLJU 2904

MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato’ Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Other Appeals [1995] 2 MLJ 493

Sundra Rajoo Nadarajah v Thirilogachandran @ Jayasangar Shamugasundaram [2025] CLJU 771

Mohd Rafizi bin Ramli v Dato’ Seri Dr Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail & Anor [2020] 1 CLJ 498