Jeyasegaram David v Ban Song Long David: Defamation, Fair Comment, and Qualified Privilege in NatSteel Takeover Battle

In Jeyasegaram David (alias David Gerald Jeyasegaram) v Ban Song Long David, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed the appellant Jeyasegaram David's defamation suit against the respondent Ban Song Long David, on April 4, 2005. The case arose from comments made during the NatSteel takeover battle, where the respondent accused the appellant of 'playing to the gallery.' The court addressed issues of defamation, fair comment, and qualified privilege, ultimately finding in favor of the respondent.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal dismissed Jeyasegaram David's defamation suit against Ban Song Long David, concerning comments made during the NatSteel takeover battle. The court addressed defamation, fair comment, and qualified privilege.

1.7 Decision Date

3 April 2005

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ban Song Long David	Respondent	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Won	Davinder Singh of Drew and Napier Adrian Tan of Drew and Napier Chelsia Wong of Drew and Napier
Jeyasegaram David (alias David Gerald Jeyasegaram)	Appellant	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Lee Eng Beng of Rajah and Tann Steven Chong of Rajah and Tann Chan Hoe of Rajah and Tann

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Yong Pung How	Chief Justice	Yes
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Tan Lee Meng	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Davinder Singh	Drew and Napier
Adrian Tan	Drew and Napier
Chelsia Wong	Drew and Napier
Lee Eng Beng	Rajah and Tann
Steven Chong	Rajah and Tann
Chan Hoe	Rajah and Tann

4. Facts

The appellant is the president and CEO of the Securities Investors Association (Singapore) (SIAS).
The respondent is a shareholder and director of 98 Holdings Pte Ltd.
98 Holdings launched a takeover bid for NatSteel in early October 2002.
Sanion Pte Ltd, controlled by Oei Hong Leong, also acquired NatSteel shares.
98 Holdings acquired 51.23% of NatSteel shares, and Sanion acquired 29.99%.
The NatSteel board announced a total dividend payment of $1.00 per share on 16 March 2003.
The linkage of special and ordinary resolutions caused controversy.
The appellant attended the EGM on 28 May 2003 as an observer.
The respondent accused the appellant of 'playing to the gallery' in a newspaper article.

5. Formal Citations

Jeyasegaram David (alias David Gerald Jeyasegaram) v Ban Song Long David, CA 96/2004, [2005] SGCA 18

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2002-10-01	98 Holdings launched a takeover bid for NatSteel.
2003-03-16	NatSteel board announced decision to recommend a total dividend payment of $1.00 per share.
2003-05-19	NatSteel issued a public announcement to justify its actions regarding the linkage of resolutions.
2003-05-22	Sanion issued a press release explaining why it intended to vote against the Scrip Dividend resolution.
2003-05-27	98 Holdings proposed a whitewash resolution.
2003-05-28	Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) held.
2003-06-04	Adjourned EGM held; article published in The Business Times.
2003-09-02	Appellant commenced defamation action.
2005-04-04	Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

Defamation
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent's words were defamatory to the appellant but the appeal was dismissed due to the defences of qualified privilege and fair comment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Defamatory statements
  - Natural and ordinary meaning of words
  - Justification
  - Malice
  - Qualified privilege
- Related Cases:
  - [2005] 1 SLR 1
  - [1999] 4 SLR 529
  - [1964] AC 234
Fair Comment
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent had succeeded in establishing the defence of fair comment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Comment or assertion of fact
  - Sufficient factual basis
  - Fair-minded person's honest opinion
- Related Cases:
  - [1999] 1 SLR 94
  - [1952] AC 345
  - [1997] 1 SLR 648
  - [1996] 1 SLR 623
Qualified Privilege
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent's comment was protected by the defence of qualified privilege.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Attack on character and conduct
  - Entitlement to respond
  - Bona fide publication
  - Relevance to accusations
- Related Cases:
  - [1994] 3 SLR 760
  - [1975] AC 135
  - [1995] EMLR 140

8. Remedies Sought

Damages
Retraction of statement
Apology
Legal costs

9. Cause of Actions

Defamation

10. Practice Areas

Defamation Law
Litigation

11. Industries

Finance
Investment

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Jeyasegaram David v Ban Song Long David	High Court	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR 1	Singapore	The appeal was against the decision of the High Court which dismissed the appellant's defamation suit.
Sin Heak Hin Pte Ltd v Yuasa Battery Singapore Co Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR 590	Singapore	Cited for the principle that to establish justification, the respondent had to prove that the defamatory imputation was true.
Chen Cheng v Central Christian Church	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR 94	Singapore	Cited for the elements that had to be proved for the defence of fair comment to succeed.
Microsoft Corp v SM Summit Holdings Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 529	Singapore	Cited for the principles in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the respondent's words.
Rubber Improvement Ltd v Daily Telegraph Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1964] AC 234	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a holistic approach had to be adopted in determining the meaning of the words alleged to be defamatory.
Maisel v Financial Times, Limited	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1915] 3 KB 336	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the respondent was entitled to rely on all relevant facts to justify his charge.
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Wright Norman	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 3 SLR 760	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a person is entitled to answer an attack on his character or conduct.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Goh Chok Tong	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1984–1985] SLR 516	Singapore	Cited for the elements that had to be proved for the defence of fair comment to succeed.
Lee Kuan Yew v Davies	High Court	Yes	[1989] SLR 1063	Singapore	Cited for the test of whether an ordinary reasonable reader on reading the whole article would understand the words as a comment or as a statement of fact.
Kemsley v Foot	House of Lords	Yes	[1952] AC 345	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that it was unnecessary for all the facts which formed the basis of the comment to be referred to.
Chiam See Tong v Ling How Doong	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR 648	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it was unnecessary for all the facts which formed the basis of the comment to be referred to.
Aaron v Cheong Yip Seng	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 623	Singapore	Cited for the test of whether a fair-minded person could honestly have felt that the appellant was 'playing to the gallery'.
Silkin v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1958] 1 WLR 743	England and Wales	Cited for the test of whether a fair-minded person could honestly have felt that the appellant was 'playing to the gallery'.
Cheng Albert v Tse Wai Chun Paul	Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal	Yes	[2000] 4 HKC 1	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that a comment which fell within the objective limits of the defence of fair comment could only lose its immunity by proof that the defendant did not genuinely hold the view he expressed.
Horrocks v Lowe	House of Lords	Yes	[1975] AC 135	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that malice for the purposes of qualified privilege is proved once the defendant misuses the privileged occasion for some purpose other than that for which the privilege is accorded.
Manches & Co v Joseph	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2001] EWHC 448	England and Wales	Cited as an English decision that cited Cheng Albert v Tse Wai Chun Paul favourably.
Lillie v Newcastle City Council	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2002] EWHC 1600	England and Wales	Cited as an English decision that cited Cheng Albert v Tse Wai Chun Paul favourably.
Next Magazine Publishing Ltd v Ma Ching Fat	Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal	Yes	[2003] 343 HKCU 1	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that there is nothing sinister per se in being business competitors or even rivals.
Fraser-Armstrong v Hadow	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] EMLR 140	England and Wales	Cited to argue that qualified privilege could not attach to a response to what a defendant knew to be a justifiable attack.
Richardson v Schwarzenegger	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2004] All ER (D) 432	England and Wales	Cited for the approach that the issue of whether an attack was justified could be better dealt with within the framework of the established doctrine of malice.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Defamation
Fair comment
Qualified privilege
Playing to the gallery
NatSteel
SIAS
98 Holdings
Sanion
EGM
Linkage of resolutions
Whitewash resolution
Shareholder rights
Takeover bid

15.2 Keywords

Defamation
Fair comment
Qualified privilege
NatSteel
SIAS
Singapore
Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Defamation	95
Estoppel	5
Contract Law	5

16. Subjects

Defamation
Tort
Corporate Governance
Securities Law