[2021] 2 MLRA Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor 461 in particular, must have been aware of the kind of materials published and would be able to foresee the sort of comments that it would attract given their experience in running Malaysiakini for over 20 years. [87] It cannot be overemphasised that the impugned comments were posted on a platform of which the 1st respondent has complete control. The 1st respondent had developed the necessary device for subscribers to post the impugned comments. It has therefore facilitated the publication of the impugned comments. And before they were removed, the glaring impugned comments were on the platform for three days and viewed by 20,000 readers daily locally and abroad. [88] In stating so, we have further considered the following observations by Eady J in Bunt v. Tilley (supra) at p 149, for the proposition by learned counsel for the respondents that for there to be legal responsibility, there must have been awareness or an assumption of responsibility so as to show knowing involvement. It was stated in that case that to determine liability for publication in the context of the law of defamation, it would be important to focus on what the person did, or failed to do, in the chain of communication and knowledge can be an important factor. That is a correct proposition. However Eady J qualified his statement when he said that if a person knowingly permits another to communicate information which is defamatory, when there should be an opportunity to prevent its publication, there would be no reason as a matter of principle why liability should not accrue. Applying that principle to the facts of this case it cannot therefore, be said that the 1st respondent had no opportunity and only played a passive instrumental role in the publication process. [89] We find the case of Delfi (supra) particularly instructive because the facts in that case bear semblance to the facts before us. The facts were these. The applicant company was the owner of Delfi, one of the largest internet news portals in Estonia that published up to 330 news articles a day. It allowed its readers to comment on the comments section of its news articles published on Delfi portal. An article entitled “SLK Destroyed Planned Ice Road” was published on 24 January 2006. This resulted in a member of the supervisory board and SLK’s sole majority shareholder, L to be the subject of some 20 out of 185 comments posted. The comments contained personal threats and offensive language. L’s lawyers then requested the applicant company to remove the offensive comments. Only then were these comments taken down. It was taken down on the same day of the request, but six weeks after the article was published. [90] The applicant company refused to compensate L. At first instance, L’s claim was dismissed on the basis of exclusionary clause of the applicant company’s liability under the Estonian Information Society Service Act (“ISSA”). L appealed to the Court of Appeal and succeeded. The decision of the County Court was quashed and the case was referred back to the first instance court for new consideration. Upon re-examination of the case, the