Sundra Rajoo a/l Nadarajah v Leaderonomics Sdn Bhd

Appellant(s): Sundra Rajoo A/L Nadarajah

Respondent(s): Leaderonomics Sdn Bhd

• YA Datuk Supang Lian
• Dato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing
• YA Datuk Dr Shahnaz Binti Sulaiman

• The appellant initiated a defamation action against the respondent and its former employee (now deceased) concerning a digital "poison pen" letter sent to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.
• Digital forensic evidence indicated that the metadata of the defamatory document identified the user and creator as the respondent’s organization, and the file was created during the deceased’s period of employment with the respondent.
• The appellant contended that the respondent was jointly or severally liable for the publication because the letter was purportedly authored and disseminated using a laptop provided by the respondent to the deceased.

• Whether the presumption of fact in publication under Section 114A(3) of the Evidence Act 1950 could be invoked against the respondent as the entity having "custody or control" of the computer from which the publication originated.
• The legal interpretation of the phrase "originates from" under Section 114A(3) and whether it refers to the device where the content was first created or the device used for immediate dissemination to third parties.
• Whether circumstantial evidence and metadata properties are sufficient to establish a legal nexus between a defamatory publication and a specific device in the custody of a corporate employer to trigger statutory presumptions.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to satisfy the threshold for invoking Section 114A(3) because the specific device from which the publication originated was never conclusively identified or forensically linked to the respondent.
• The Court clarified that "custody or control" under Section 114A(3) must be established at the material time of the publication; as the deceased had physical possession and use of the laptop, the respondent had successfully rebutted any presumption of being the publisher.
• The Court ruled that metadata showing a corporate name as the "author" only proves the file appeared on a device with that user profile, but is insufficient to create an irresistible inference that the publication originated from a particular device belonging to the respondent.