T J Systems v Ngow Kheong Shen: Defamation, Fair Comment & Qualified Privilege
In T J Systems (S) Pte Ltd and Others v Ngow Kheong Shen, the High Court of Singapore addressed a defamation claim brought by T J Systems, its directors, and sales staff against Ngow Kheong Shen, who sent an email alleging bribery by T J Systems to a police officer. The court, presided over by Lai Siu Chiu J, found the email defamatory and rejected Ngow's defenses of fair comment and qualified privilege. Interlocutory judgment was granted for five of the plaintiffs, with damages to be assessed by the Registrar. The claims of the remaining plaintiffs were dismissed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Interlocutory judgment for the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth plaintiffs; claims of the fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth plaintiffs dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Defamation case involving T J Systems and Ngow Kheong Shen over an email alleging bribery. The court found the email defamatory and rejected defenses of fair comment and qualified privilege.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T J Systems (S) Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Interlocutory judgment for Plaintiff | Partial | Daniel Koh, Martin Lee |
| Ting Siew Hood | Plaintiff | Individual | Interlocutory judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Daniel Koh, Martin Lee |
| Leow Chin Bee | Plaintiff | Individual | Interlocutory judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Daniel Koh, Martin Lee |
| Wang Yong Hong | Plaintiff | Individual | Interlocutory judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Daniel Koh, Martin Lee |
| Lo Ooi Yit | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | Daniel Koh, Martin Lee |
| Foong Kok Seng | Plaintiff | Individual | Interlocutory judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Daniel Koh, Martin Lee |
| Leong Wai On | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | Daniel Koh, Martin Lee |
| Yew Yeow Tiong | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | Daniel Koh, Martin Lee |
| Seng Kong Keong | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | Daniel Koh, Martin Lee |
| Ngow Kheong Shen | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost | Peter Chua, Melissa Ann Yeoh |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Daniel Koh | CTLC Law Corporation |
| Martin Lee | CTLC Law Corporation |
| Peter Chua | Peter Chua & Partners |
| Melissa Ann Yeoh | Peter Chua & Partners |
4. Facts
- T J Systems is in the business of supplying security systems.
- Ngow Kheong Shen is the system sales manager of Cisco Security Technology Pte Ltd, a competitor of T J Systems.
- Ngow sent an email to 15 persons within Cisco's organisation alleging that T J Systems was being investigated for bribery.
- The email stated that CPIB had 'strong' evidence against T J Systems and that PTD had internally debarred T J Systems.
- T J Systems received a copy of the email anonymously.
- T J Systems complained that the email was malicious and untrue, causing repercussions.
- Ngow refused to apologize for and retract the allegations made in the email.
5. Formal Citations
- T J Systems (S) Pte Ltd and Others v Ngow Kheong Shen, Suit 815/2002, [2003] SGHC 73
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| T J Systems (S) Pte Ltd incorporated. | |
| T J Systems awarded contract by the police force. | |
| Ting Siew Hood and Leow Chin Bee interviewed by CPIB. | |
| Alleged date of CPIB investigation mentioned in the email. | |
| Ngow Kheong Shen sent the defamatory email. | |
| T J Systems received a copy of the email. | |
| Ngow Kheong Shen's solicitors sent a letter contending qualified privilege. | |
| T J Systems tendered to supply night vision binoculars to the PTD. | |
| T J Systems invited by PTD to tender for the supply of portable handheld explosive vapour and particle detectors. | |
| T J Systems submitted its tender for detectors. | |
| PTD requested T J Systems to provide a sample unit for evaluation. | |
| T J Systems accepted an invitation from PTD to attend a briefing for a new tender exercise. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Defamation
- Outcome: The court found that the words in the email were defamatory of the first, second, third, fourth and sixth plaintiffs.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Defamatory statements
- Publication
- Fair Comment
- Outcome: The court rejected the defence of fair comment.
- Category: Substantive
- Qualified Privilege
- Outcome: The court rejected the defence of qualified privilege.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Apology
- Retraction of defamatory allegations
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
10. Practice Areas
- Defamation Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Security Systems
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Kuan Yew v Davies & Others | High Court | Yes | [1989] SLR 1063 | Singapore | Cited to support the submission that Ngow's statements, taken in the context of the whole of the e-mail, defamed TJ's two directors and six sales staff. |
| Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd | House of Lords | No | [1944] 1 ALL ER 495 | England and Wales | Cited to determine whether the defendants' publication could refer to the plaintiff, who was not specifically mentioned in the article. |
| Vlasic v Federal Capital Press of Australia | Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court | Yes | [1976] 9 ACTR 1 | Australia | Cited to support the submission that the defamatory words indeed referred to the second to ninth plaintiffs. |
| DHKW Marketing v Nature's Farm Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 400 | Singapore | Cited to support the submission that the defamatory words indeed referred to the second to ninth plaintiffs. |
| Mohd Hussein v Chew How Yang Eddie | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 177 | Singapore | Cited to support the submission that the defamatory words indeed referred to the second to ninth plaintiffs. |
| Chen Chang v Central Christian Church | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 94 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of qualified privilege. |
| Adam v Ward | House of Lords | Yes | [1971] AC 309 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of qualified privilege. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code Cap 224, s 109 | Singapore |
| Penal Code Cap 224, s 161 | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act Cap 241, ss 5(b) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act Cap 241, s 6 | Singapore |
| Official Secrets Act Cap 213, s 5 | Singapore |
| Commercial & Industrial Security Corporation Act Cap 47, s 10 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Defamation
- Qualified privilege
- Fair comment
- Bribery
- CPIB investigation
- PTD debarment
- Email publication
- Security systems
- Cisco
- T J Systems
15.2 Keywords
- defamation
- tort
- Singapore
- High Court
- security systems
- bribery
- qualified privilege
- fair comment
16. Subjects
- Defamation
- Tort Law
- Civil Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Tort
- Defamation