1. ) Chu Kim Foong v Lai Zhen Yean (WA-23CY-22-09/2023)

High Court of Malaysia9 Oct 2025

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Open official source PDF Report an issue

Text not available yet

We have this decision's details, but the judgment text is not available yet.

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.

Report an issue Request removal

Malaysian judgment

Case metadata

Court: High Court of Malaysia
Decision date: 9 Oct 2025
Case number: WA-23CY-22-09/2023
Coram: YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain
Practice area: This Court’s Orders [74] For the reasons set out herein, judgment is entered in favour of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Plaintiffs against the Defendant. This Court makes the following orders: (a) General Damages The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs general damages as follows: (a) To the 1st Plaintiff: RM50,000 (b) To the 2nd Plaintiff: RM50,000 (c) To the 3rd Plaintiff: RM50,000 (d) To the 4th Plaintiff: RM50,000 The quantum is assessed having regard to the factors set out by the Federal Court in Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan bin Kassim (and Another Appeal) [2021] 4 CLJ 155
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 10 Oct 2025
Source ID: f487c99c-58fd-4975-a1cc-87795dc792f7

Catchwords

This Court’s Orders [74] For the reasons set out herein, judgment is entered in favour of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Plaintiffs against the Defendant. This Court makes the following orders: (a) General Damages The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs general damages as follows: (a) To the 1st Plaintiff: RM50,000 (b) To the 2nd Plaintiff: RM50,000 (c) To the 3rd Plaintiff: RM50,000 (d) To the 4th Plaintiff: RM50,000 The quantum is assessed having regard to the factors set out by the Federal Court in Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan bin Kassim (and Another Appeal) [2021] 4 CLJ 155[2021] 2 MLJ 514[2021] 3 MLRA 207 and the recent judicial trend in cases involving businesses and professionals as seen in Ifcon Technology Sdn Bhd & Ors v Luqmanul Hakim Abd Rahim [2022] 1 LNS 1533, Jason Jonathan Lo v Star Media Group Bhd & Ors [2024] CLJU 470, Chua Chin Soon v Wong Yew Choong [2025] CLJU 101, and Lim Bee Chian v Hendrick Chia Miah Yang [2025] CLJU 965. The quantum is assessed having regard to the factors set out in Lim Guan Eng (supra), particularly: (i) The conduct of the Plaintiffs, who have maintained their professional standing and reputation(ii) The Plaintiffs' position and standing in society as leaders in the cybersecurity industry in Malaysia(iii) The nature of the libel, which contained multiple serious allegations across a lengthy and detailed article(iv) The mode and extent of publication, which included Medium, WayBack Machine website archiving, and viral dissemination through the Low Yatt Forum(v) The absence of an apology or retraction by the Defendant prior to this judgmentand (vi) The whole conduct of the Defendant from the time of publication to the conclusion of trial. This Court is of the considered view that while the defamation is serious and proven, the paramount importance in this case lies not in substantial monetary compensation but in the permanent removal of the defamatory publication and the issuance of a public apology to restore the Plaintiffs' reputations. These moderate awards serve the compensatory function while recognizing that the Defendant's conduct, though improper, was not at the extreme end of malicious defamation warranting the highest awards. The awards are nevertheless substantial enough to vindicate the Plaintiffs' rights and signal that defamatory publications have consequences. (b) Aggravated and Exemplary Damages No award of aggravated damages or exemplary damages is made. While the Defendant's conduct in publishing the Impugned Article was improper and legally indefensible, he had made it clear in the Exit Interview on the reasons of his resignation. Yet, the Plaintiff had failed to address the issues personally and privately. The circumstances including the personal position of the parties do not warrant damages of a punitive in terms of aggravated damages or exemplary nature. (c) Perpetual Injunction A perpetual injunction is granted restraining the Defendant, whether by himself, his servants, agents or otherwise howsoever, from publishing, causing to be published, or authorizing the publication of: (i) The Impugned Article or any part thereof(ii) Any similar defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiffs or any of themand (iii) Any statements with the same or similar defamatory meaning as those contained in the Impugned Article. (d) Removal Order The Defendant shall, within fourteen (14) days from the date of this judgment: (a) Take all necessary steps to procure the permanent removal of the Impugned Article from WayBack Machine website or any other internet archive or platform where it may be accessible(b) Take all necessary steps to procure the permanent removal of any links to the Impugned Article from any forum, website or platform including but not limited to

Parties

1. ) CHU KIM FOONG - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
2. ) FONG CHOONG FOOK - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
3. ) KENNETH SHAK JIAN WEN - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
4. ) LE GLOBAL SERVICES SDN BHD - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
LAI ZHEN YEAN - defendant - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Catchwords