Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party: Defamation & Summary Judgment

The High Court of Singapore granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Lee Hsien Loong and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew in two separate defamation suits against the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), Ms. Chee Siok Chin, and Dr. Chee Soon Juan. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for publishing an allegedly defamatory article in the SDP’s newspaper, The New Democrat. The court found that the articles were indeed defamatory and that the defendants' defenses lacked merit. Interlocutory judgment was entered against the defendants, with damages to be assessed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed was entered against the defendants in the LHL action as well as in the LKY action.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Summary judgment granted in favor of Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew in a defamation suit against Singapore Democratic Party for publishing defamatory articles.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Singapore Democratic PartyDefendantAssociationJudgment in default entered against DefendantLost
Lee Hsien LoongPlaintiffIndividualInterlocutory judgment for PlaintiffWon
Chee Soon JuanDefendantIndividualInterlocutory judgment against DefendantLost
Chee Siok ChinDefendantIndividualInterlocutory judgment against DefendantLost
Lee Kuan YewPlaintiffIndividualInterlocutory judgment for PlaintiffWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Davinder SinghDrew & Napier LLC
Adrian TanDrew & Napier LLC
Tan Siu-LinDrew & Napier LLC
M RaviM Ravi & Co

4. Facts

  1. Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew sued the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), Chee Siok Chin, and Chee Soon Juan for defamation.
  2. The allegedly defamatory article was published in the SDP's newspaper, The New Democrat.
  3. The plaintiffs applied for summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of Court.
  4. The defendants sought multiple adjournments of the summary judgment hearing.
  5. The court refused a further adjournment and proceeded with the hearing in the defendants' absence.
  6. The court found that the Disputed Words bore the ordinary and natural meanings asserted by the plaintiffs as a result of “defamation by implication”.
  7. The defendants pleaded common law defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment with insufficient particularity.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and Others and Another Suit, Suit 261/2006, 262/2006, SUM 2838/2006, 2839/2006, [2006] SGHC 220

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Leave of court was obtained to commence suits against Dr. Chee Soon Juan.
Judgment in default was entered against the first defendant, the SDP.
Plaintiffs applied for summary judgment.
Hearing of O 14 summonses adjourned due to counsel's illness.
Further adjournment refused; interlocutory judgment entered against defendants.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court found that the Disputed Words bore the ordinary and natural meanings asserted by the plaintiffs as a result of “defamation by implication”.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Defamatory meaning
      • Reference to plaintiff
      • Justification
      • Fair comment
      • Qualified privilege
  2. Summary Judgment
    • Outcome: The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the defendants had not shown that the claims should go to trial.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Adjournment
    • Outcome: The court refused the defendants' application for a further adjournment of the O 14 hearing.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation
  • Breach of Undertaking (LKY action only)

10. Practice Areas

  • Defamation Litigation
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Media
  • Politics

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chee Siok Chin v Attorney GeneralHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR 541SingaporeCited regarding the right of an individual member of a government body to sue if a statement about the body is capable of being interpreted as referring to the individual.
Derbyshire County Council v Times NewspapersHouse of LordsYes[1993] AC 534EnglandCited for the proposition that a government or public body cannot be defamed and, hence, cannot sue for defamation.
Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan YewCourt of AppealYes[1998] 1 SLR 97SingaporeCited to affirm that politicians, like any other citizens, do not forfeit the protection of their reputations merely because they have entered the political arena and assumed high offices.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan YewCourt of AppealYes[1992] 2 SLR 310SingaporeCited regarding the balance between the right of free speech and the right to protection of reputation.
Microsoft Corp v SM Summit Holdings LtdHigh CourtYes[1999] 4 SLR 529SingaporeCited for the principle that the question of whether passages are defamatory is a question of law which may be determined summarily under the O 14 procedure.
Jones v SkeltonPrivy CouncilYes[1963] 3 All ER 952United KingdomCited for the principle of determining the natural and ordinary meaning of words in a defamation action.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Goh Chok TongHigh CourtYes[1984-1985] SLR 516SingaporeCited for the principle that the court decides what meaning the words would have conveyed to an ordinary, reasonable person using his general knowledge and common sense.
A Balakrishnan v Nirumalan K PillayHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR 22SingaporeCited for the inadmissibility of extrinsic evidence in construing the words in a defamation action.
Hasnul bin Abdul Hadi v Bulat bin MohamedMalacca High CourtYes[1978] 1 MLJ 75MalaysiaCited as an example of defamation by implication, where a person is compared to another disreputable individual.
Aaron v Cheong Yip SengHigh CourtYes[1996] 1 SLR 623SingaporeCited for the principle that particulars are crucial when justification is pleaded as the issues to be tried under this plea are limited to the matters referred to in the particulars.
Re Tan Khee Eng JohnHigh CourtYes[1997] 3 SLR 382SingaporeCited regarding the court's authority and the consequences of conduct that attempts to thwart the court's process.
Chen Cheng v Central Christian ChurchHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR 94SingaporeCited for the onerous standard required for 'special facts' in relation to qualified privilege.
Reynolds v Times Newspapers LtdHouse of LordsYes[2001] 2 AC 127United KingdomCited regarding the concept of 'responsible journalism' and its applicability in defamation cases.
Lange v Australian Broadcasting CorporationHigh CourtYes[1997] 145 ALR 96AustraliaCited regarding a special privilege for information relating to political and government matters.
Lange v AtkinsonCourt of AppealYes[2000] 3 NZLR 385New ZealandCited regarding a special privilege for political statements and the requirement for responsible or reasonable conduct by the publisher.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap 206, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defamation
  • Summary judgment
  • Adjournment
  • Qualified privilege
  • Fair comment
  • Justification
  • NKF scandal
  • Transparency
  • Accountability
  • Political system
  • Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC)
  • Housing and Development Board (HDB)
  • Central Provident Fund (CPF)

15.2 Keywords

  • defamation
  • summary judgment
  • Singapore Democratic Party
  • Lee Hsien Loong
  • Lee Kuan Yew
  • NKF scandal
  • freedom of speech

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Defamation95
Civil Procedure70
Company Law10

16. Subjects

  • Defamation
  • Civil Procedure
  • Media Law