Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David: Defamation Claim over NatSteel Shareholder Dispute

Oei Hong Leong, a prominent businessman, sued Ban Song Long David, 98 Holdings Pte Ltd, Singapore Press Holdings Ltd, and Catherine Ong for defamation over an article published in The Business Times concerning a shareholder dispute at NatSteel Ltd. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Tay Yong Kwang J, dismissed Oei Hong Leong's claim, finding that while the words in question had a defamatory meaning, the defense of justification and qualified privilege succeeded, and malice was not proven.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Claim dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Defamation suit by Oei Hong Leong against David Ban and others over comments published in The Business Times regarding a NatSteel shareholder dispute. The court dismissed the claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Oei Hong LeongPlaintiffIndividualClaim dismissedLostMichael Khoo, Josephine Low, Andy Chiok
Ban Song Long DavidDefendantIndividualClaim dismissedWonDavinder Singh, Hri Kumar, Adrian Tan, Cheryl Tan, Chelsia Wong
98 Holdings Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim dismissedWonDavinder Singh, Hri Kumar, Adrian Tan, Cheryl Tan, Chelsia Wong
Singapore Press Holdings LtdDefendantCorporationClaim dismissedWonTan Chee Meng, Doris Chia, Chang Man Phing
Catherine OngDefendantIndividualClaim dismissedWonTan Chee Meng, Doris Chia, Chang Man Phing

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Michael KhooMichael Khoo and Partners
Josephine LowMichael Khoo and Partners
Andy ChiokMichael Khoo and Partners
Davinder SinghDrew and Napier LLC
Hri KumarDrew and Napier LLC
Adrian TanDrew and Napier LLC
Cheryl TanDrew and Napier LLC
Chelsia WongDrew and Napier LLC
Tan Chee MengHarry Elias Partnership
Doris ChiaHarry Elias Partnership
Chang Man PhingHarry Elias Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Oei Hong Leong sued for defamation over comments in a Business Times article.
  2. The article concerned a shareholder dispute at NatSteel.
  3. David Ban, a director of NatSteel, made the comments in question.
  4. The comments were published in the print and online editions of The Business Times.
  5. The plaintiff opposed a resolution proposed by NatSteel.
  6. The plaintiff claimed the words meant he was acting unreasonably and oppressively.
  7. The defendants argued the words were fair comment and justified.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David and Others, Suit 670/2003, [2004] SGHC 253

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Article published in The Business Times
Rajah & Tann sent letters to David Ban and SPH demanding retraction
Solicitors sent letters of demand to 98 Holdings and Catherine Ong
Judgment issued
David Ban appointed director of NatSteel
Board of directors issued a circular to the shareholders
Extraordinary general meeting held
Adjourned extraordinary general meeting held
Extraordinary general meeting held

7. Legal Issues

  1. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court found that the words in question had a defamatory meaning but the defenses of justification and qualified privilege succeeded, and malice was not proven.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Defamatory statements
      • Fair comment
      • Justification
      • Malice
      • Qualified privilege
  2. Fair Comment
    • Outcome: The court found that the comments were an expression of honest opinion on a matter of public interest and based on facts.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Expression of honest opinion
      • Matter of public interest
      • Based on facts
  3. Qualified Privilege
    • Outcome: The court found that the comments were made on an occasion of qualified privilege.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interest or duty to make communication
      • Corresponding interest to receive communication
      • Derivative privilege
  4. Justification
    • Outcome: The court found that the defamatory imputation of the words in their natural and ordinary meaning was justified on the plaintiff’s own evidence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Truth in substance and fact

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Retraction
  3. Apology
  4. Legal costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Defamation
  • Shareholder Disputes

11. Industries

  • Media
  • Finance
  • Manufacturing

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Microsoft Corp v SM Summit Holdings LtdCourt of AppealYes[1999] 4 SLR 529SingaporeCited for principles in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of words in a defamation action.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Goh Chok TongN/AYes[1984–1985] SLR 516N/ACited for principles in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of words in a defamation action.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan YewN/AYes[1992] 2 SLR 310N/ACited for principles in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of words in a defamation action.
The Capital & Counties Bank v George Henty & SonsN/AYes(1882) 7 App Cas 741N/ACited for the principle that it is incorrect to simply choose the most defamatory meaning if the words in question are capable of several meanings.
Berkoff v BurchillN/AYes[1996] 4 All ER 1008N/ACited for the principle that insults which do not diminish a man’s standing among other people do not found an action for libel or slander.
Sin Heak Hin Pte Ltd v Yuasa Battery Singapore Co Pte LtdN/AYes[1995] 3 SLR 590SingaporeCited for the requirements to establish the defence of justification in a defamation case.
Aaron v Cheong Yip SengN/AYes[1996] 1 SLR 623SingaporeCited for the principle that the substance or gist of the libel has to be justified.
Adam v WardN/AYes[1917] AC 309N/ACited for the principle that qualified privilege is available where the person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty to make it to the person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it.
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Wright NormanN/AYes[1994] 3 SLR 760SingaporeCited for the application of the doctrine of derivative privilege.
Chen Cheng v Central Christian ChurchCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR 94SingaporeCited for the requirements to succeed in a defence of fair comment.
Telnikoff v MatusevitchN/AYes[1992] 2 AC 343N/ACited for the principle that so long as the comments were the speaker's honest opinion, it is not necessary for the publisher to prove that the offending words represent their own honest opinion as well.
Cheng Albert v Tse Wai Chun PaulCourt of Final AppealYes[2000] 4 HKC 1Hong KongCited for the discussion of malice in the context of fair comment.
Horrocks v LoweN/AYes[1975] AC 135N/ACited for the discussion of malice in the context of qualified privilege.
Lee Kuan Yew v DaviesN/AYes[1989] SLR 1063SingaporeCited for the principle that malice has to be proved against each of the defendants.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore
Defamation Act (Cap 75, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Singapore Code on Takeovers and MergersSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defamation
  • Fair comment
  • Qualified privilege
  • Justification
  • Malice
  • Shareholder dispute
  • NatSteel
  • Obstructive action
  • Oppression
  • Scrip dividend
  • Whitewash proposal

15.2 Keywords

  • defamation
  • shareholder dispute
  • NatSteel
  • Oei Hong Leong
  • David Ban
  • Business Times
  • Singapore
  • corporate governance
  • takeover
  • minority shareholder rights

16. Subjects

  • Defamation
  • Shareholder Rights
  • Corporate Governance

17. Areas of Law

  • Defamation Law
  • Tort Law
  • Company Law