Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP: Defamation, Damages, Justification & Qualified Privilege
In Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard cross-appeals from a decision by Chan Seng Onn JC regarding a defamation suit. Mr. Arul, a lawyer, sued Mr. Chew, an architect, for defamation based on flyers and letters circulated by Mr. Chew. The judicial commissioner found that Mr. Chew defamed Mr. Arul and awarded $150,000 in damages. Mr. Chew appealed the finding of defamation and the quantum of damages, while Mr. Arul appealed, seeking a higher damage award. The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, upholding the initial judgment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Defamation suit where Chew was found to have defamed Arul. Appeals by both parties dismissed, upholding the initial judgment and damages.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arul Chandran | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Suresh Damodara, John Thomas, K Sureshan |
| Chew Chin Aik Victor JP | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Howard Cashin, Imran Hamid, Burton Chen |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Suresh Damodara | Colin Ng & Partners |
| John Thomas | Colin Ng & Partners |
| K Sureshan | Colin Ng & Partners |
| Howard Cashin | Tan Rajah & Cheah |
| Imran Hamid | Tan Rajah & Cheah |
| Burton Chen | Tan Rajah & Cheah |
4. Facts
- Mr. Arul and Mr. Chew are members of the Tanglin Club.
- Mr. Chew circulated a flyer criticizing Mr. Arul before the club's AGM.
- Mr. Arul was elected as Vice-President of the club.
- Mr. Chew's flyer bore his club membership number.
- Mr. Chew sent a letter to Mr. Arul referencing a newspaper cutting about a lawyer sentenced to jail.
- Mr. Chew wrote letters to the president and committee of the club enclosing correspondence with Mr. Arul.
- Mr. Chew's letters contained statements calling Mr. Arul a 'most vicious and dangerous fraud'.
5. Formal Citations
- Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP, CA 92/2000, 93/2000, [2001] SGCA 3
- Tara Rajaratnam v Datuk Jagindar Singh & Ors, , [1983] 2 MLJ 127
- Datuk Jagindar Singh & Ors v Tara Rajaratnam, , [1986] 1 MLJ 105
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Legal proceedings instituted in Malaysia by Madam Tara Rajaratnam against two lawyers. | |
| Annual general meeting of the Tanglin Club. | |
| Mr. Arul wrote to Mr. Chew to find out whether the latter was the author of the flyer. | |
| Mr. Arul sent a reminder to the respondent. | |
| Mr. Chew replied to Mr. Arul's letter. | |
| Mr. Arul replied to Mr. Chew's letter. | |
| Mr. Chew wrote to Mr. Arul. | |
| Mr. Arul replied to Mr. Chew. | |
| Mr. Chew replied with a letter to Mr. Arul. | |
| Mr. Chew wrote to the president and committee of the club. | |
| The president of the club wrote to Mr. Chew. | |
| Mr. Chew wrote to the president of the club. | |
| Mr. Arul responded to Mr. Chew's letter. | |
| Mr. Chew replied to Mr. Arul. | |
| Mr. Chew wrote to the president of the club. | |
| Chan Seng Onn JC's decision regarding the defamation suit. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Defamation
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Chew defamed Mr. Arul.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Justification
- Qualified Privilege
- Malice
- Related Cases:
- [1983] 2 MLJ 127
- [1986] 1 MLJ 105
- Damages
- Outcome: The court upheld the award of $150,000 in damages, including aggravated damages.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- General Damages
- Aggravated Damages
- Nominal Damages
- Related Cases:
- [1964] AC 371
- [1892] 2 QB 524
- [1998] 1 SLR 97
- Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court found that issue estoppel did not apply in this case.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1985] 2 All ER 104
- [1985] 1 WLR 490
- (Unreported)
- [1982] AC 529
- [1967] 1 AC 853
- Costs
- Outcome: The court ordered that costs be taxed on the High Court scale.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
10. Practice Areas
- Defamation Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tara Rajaratnam v Datuk Jagindar Singh & Ors | High Court | Yes | [1983] 2 MLJ 127 | Malaysia | Cited for Abdul Razak J's finding that Mr. Arul was a 'most vicious and dangerous fraud'. |
| Datuk Jagindar Singh & Ors v Tara Rajaratnam | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council | Yes | [1986] 1 MLJ 105 | Malaysia | Cited for the Privy Council's view on Mr. Arul's role in the alleged fraud, stating he had no hand in the events. |
| The Sennar (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1985] 2 All ER 104 | England | Cited regarding the requirements of issue estoppel, specifically that the parties in the earlier and later actions must be the same. |
| The Sennar (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1985] 1 WLR 490 | England | Cited regarding the requirements of issue estoppel, specifically that the parties in the earlier and later actions must be the same. |
| Saskatoon Credit Union Ltd v Central Park Enterprises Ltd | British Columbia Supreme Court | Yes | (Unreported) | Canada | Cited regarding the view that privity is not required for issue estoppel and the touchstone should be fairness. |
| Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police & Ors | House of Lords | Yes | [1982] AC 529 | England | Cited regarding the use of the abuse of process doctrine and the restriction of the term 'issue estoppel'. |
| Carl Ziess Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1967] 1 AC 853 | N/A | Cited regarding the caution that should be exercised before allowing any reliance on issue estoppel in the case of a foreign judgment. |
| Edwards v Bell | N/A | Yes | [1824] 1 Bing 403 | N/A | Cited for the principle that justification must meet the sting of the charge. |
| Sutherland v Stopes | N/A | Yes | [1924] All ER 19 | N/A | Cited for the principle that raking up a long-buried past may be libellous if it suggests a taint on character still subsists. |
| Associated Newspapers v Dingle | N/A | Yes | [1964] AC 371 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will reject a trial judge's award of damages only in very special or very exceptional cases. |
| Ratcliffe v Evans | N/A | Yes | [1892] 2 QB 524 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the law presumes some damage will flow from the mere invasion of the right to reputation. |
| Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew & Anor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 97 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that grossly exorbitant awards for defamation are to be avoided. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97) | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Defamation
- Qualified Privilege
- Justification
- Malice
- Damages
- Tanglin Club
- Flyer
- Issue Estoppel
- Aggravated Damages
15.2 Keywords
- defamation
- Singapore
- appeal
- damages
- justification
- qualified privilege
- malice
- club
- committee
- Arul Chandran
- Chew Chin Aik Victor
16. Subjects
- Defamation
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
17. Areas of Law
- Tort
- Defamation
- Civil Procedure
- Costs