Tan Sing How & Ors v Ng Ze Xuan

Appellant(s):

• Tan Sing How
• Lai Phui Khae
• Kalysta Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent(s): Ng Ze Xuan

• YA Datuk Mohamed Zaini Bin Mazlan
• YA Dato' Ong Chee Kwan
• YA Tuan Muniandy a/l Kannyappan

• The respondent, a former General Agent for the appellant company (an online health supplement business), was terminated after being found to have breached company policy by engaging in another online business and failing to follow directives regarding a social media influencer.
• Following her termination, the appellants published seven statements over eight days on various online platforms, accusing the respondent of misconduct, dishonesty, and being a "compulsive liar" and "manipulative leader."
• The High Court found the statements defamatory, rejected the appellants' pleaded defences, awarded RM600,000 in damages (severally), and ordered an apology, while dismissing the appellants' counterclaim.

• Whether the High Court correctly rejected the appellants' pleaded defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment against the defamation claim.
• Whether the multiple defamatory statements, published within a short period and concerning the same subject matter, should be treated as a continuous course of defamation warranting a single global award of damages with joint and several liability.
• Whether the Court possesses the jurisdiction to compel the publication of an apology as a remedy in a defamation suit.

• The Court affirmed the finding that the statements were defamatory and upheld the rejection of the appellants' defences of justification, qualified privilege (due to malice and excessive scope), and fair comment (as statements were factual and not of public interest).
• The Court ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to compel an apology, as it is not a recognised common law or statutory remedy and must be voluntary, though it may order withdrawals or corrections in exceptional cases.
• The Court held that multiple defamatory publications within a compressed period, concerning the same subject matter and from common controlling minds, should be treated as a continuous course of defamation, warranting a single global award of RM100,000 (reduced from RM600,000) against the appellants jointly and severally, and dismissed the appellants' counterclaim.