KUALA LUMPUR – Nearly five years after filing a defamation and cyberbullying lawsuit, a 49-year-old former condominium manager was told by the Johor Bahru Sessions Court that her claims of defamation were substantiated, but her case was dismissed due to a procedural oversight.
This was because the alleged defamatory statements in her statement of claim were not translated from English into Bahasa Malaysia, as required by court rules.
Shanti Gopalan, a former condominium manager, initiated legal proceedings in January 2021, accusing resident Looi Kim Lean of repeatedly harassing her via emails and a social media platform intended for apartment owners.
According to her statement of claim, the dispute began when Looi visited Shanti’s office to complain about the condominium’s guest visitation and registration policy. Shanti explained that Looi’s demands were beyond her authority to meet, but Looi was reportedly angered by her response.
“The plaintiff explained her limited role within the management structure, but the defendant refused to accept this explanation and became angered by how the plaintiff responded to her request.
“Her behaviour escalated to the point where the plaintiff felt threatened and had no choice but to contact the police. As a precautionary measure, the plaintiff lodged a police report to document the defendant’s conduct and ensure her own safety.
“Following that incident, the defendant embarked on a sustained campaign of defamation against the plaintiff, making numerous false and damaging statements across multiple platforms from December 2019 until November 2020,” the plaintiff’s court documents state.
In her claim, Shanti stated that Looi’s remarks, which were posted on the condominium’s social media app and sent via email to several recipients, including the condominium developer SP Setia, portrayed her as incompetent, unprofessional, and of dubious character.
The alleged terms used included calling her “clueless” about her work, “crazy” or “cuckoo,” and “man crazy.” Shanti claimed these comments caused her humiliation and damaged her professional reputation.
Seeking RM250,000 in damages, Shanti described Looi’s actions as cyberbullying and asserted they were part of a deliberate campaign to undermine her.
Looi denied the accusations and filed a counterclaim, alleging that Shanti had defamed her during a heated exchange at the management office on December 5, 2019.
During cross-examination, Looi admitted to publishing a number of the allegedly defamatory statements and attempted to justify her choice of words.
“Defamation was unequivocally established. The defendant admitted authoring and publishing 47 malicious and sustained statements via email, WhatsApp, and a community app, targeting the plaintiff’s character, credibility, and competence,” Shanti’s lawyer, Mavin Rajah, told Scoop.
However, the defence raised a procedural objection at the end of the trial, after all witnesses had testified. They argued that the plaintiff had failed to provide Malay translations of the allegedly defamatory statements, Mavin explained.
Citing court rules that require documents to be in Malay, the defence argued that this omission was enough to warrant the dismissal of the case.
This mirrors a recent ruling by the Court of Appeal on July 14, which dismissed former Sessions Court judge Mabel Sheela Muthiah’s RM100 million defamation suit against journalist Clare Rewcastle Brown for similar reasons.
A week later, the Johor Bahru Sessions Court applied the same reasoning in Shanti’s case.
In its judgment, delivered via e-Review on July 21, the court acknowledged that Shanti had proven that Looi’s statements were defamatory and damaging to her reputation. However, the court concluded that the lack of Malay translations of the impugned statements in the court documents constituted a procedural defect that led to the dismissal of the suit.
“At the outset, all parties agreed that the trial would be conducted in English.
“The procedural argument by the defence was never raised during trial, and it was only highlighted at the very end.
“It is my view that there was substantial compliance in this case by the plaintiff. There was no confusion, no disadvantage, and no prejudice to the defendant.
“The defence understood the claims, participated in the trial fully, and defended herself on the merits,” Mavin stated.
Despite the court’s acknowledgement of defamation, Mavin confirmed that his client would not be appealing the Johor Bahru Sessions Court’s decision, as she wished to close this chapter after five years of legal proceedings.
However, Mavin expressed hope that Mabel Muthiah would appeal her case to the Federal Court, which could clarify the procedural rules necessary in defamation cases.
“In an era where online defamation and cyberbullying are on the rise, the law must focus on substance over form, especially when reputations, livelihoods, and dignity are at stake.
“Courts must not get lost in the jungle of technicalities but should instead deliver justice based on substance and merit. Procedural rules are tools, not obstacles,” Mavin said. – August 2, 2025