Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei: Defamation Claim & Striking Out Application
In Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and Tung Yu-Lien Margaret, the High Court of Singapore addressed a defamation claim brought by Mr. Peter Lim against Mr. Lin Jian Wei and Ms. Tung Yu-Lien Margaret, the shareholders and directors of Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd. The claim arose from statements in an Explanatory Statement concerning the company's financial difficulties. The defendants applied to strike out the action, arguing the statements were not defamatory and sought a determination under O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court. The court dismissed the application to strike out the action and denied the application for a preliminary ruling, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application to strike out the action under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the court is dismissed with costs. The application for a preliminary ruling under Order 14 Rule 12 is denied.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment reserved.
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Defamation claim by Peter Lim against Lin Jian Wei and Tung Yu-Lien Margaret dismissed. The court rejected the application to strike out the action.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Eng Hock Peter | Plaintiff | Individual | Application to strike out dismissed | Neutral | Alvin Yeo, Chan Hock Keng, Koh Swee Yen |
| Lin Jian Wei | Defendant | Individual | Application to strike out dismissed | Lost | K Shanmugan, Muthu Arusu s/o Murugayair, Tay Yong Seng |
| Tung Yu-Lien Margaret | Defendant | Individual | Application to strike out dismissed | Lost | K Shanmugan, Muthu Arusu s/o Murugayair, Tay Yong Seng |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| K Shanmugan | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Muthu Arusu s/o Murugayair | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Tay Yong Seng | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Alvin Yeo | Wong Partnership LLP |
| Chan Hock Keng | Wong Partnership LLP |
| Koh Swee Yen | Wong Partnership LLP |
4. Facts
- Mr. Lim claims he was defamed by statements in an Explanatory Statement.
- The Explanatory Statement concerned the financial difficulties of Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd.
- The defendants are the shareholders and directors of the company.
- The Explanatory Statement was furnished to Scheme Creditors.
- Mr. Lim alleges the defendants sought to deflect blame for the company’s financial woes.
- The allegedly defamatory statements appeared under the heading “Background to the Company’s difficulties”.
- The defendants annexed a copy of their Statement of Claim (Amendment No 2) in Suit No 46 of 2006.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and Another, Suit 514/2007, SUM 4849/2007, [2008] SGHC 108
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd formed. | |
| Company invited members of the public to join the club at a discounted price. | |
| Club began operations. | |
| Suits were filed involving the company, its then shareholders and Mr Lim. | |
| Media widely publicised that the club had 19,000 members. | |
| Defendants acquired all the shares in the company. | |
| Dissatisfied members of the club sued the company. | |
| Court of Appeal held that there was breach of an implied promise. | |
| Court of Appeal increased the damages payable to each claimant to $3,000. | |
| Kan Ting Chiu J gave the green light for the convening of a meeting of Scheme Creditors. | |
| More than 90% of the Scheme Creditors voted in favour of the Scheme. | |
| Kan J approved the Scheme. | |
| Suit No 46 of 2006 commenced, alleging breach of fiduciary duties. | |
| Mr Lim’s defamation action was started. | |
| Parties exchanged their lists of documents. | |
| Decision Date | |
| Trial fixed for August 2008. |
7. Legal Issues
- Defamation
- Outcome: The court determined that the defamation claim should not be struck out and that the case should proceed to trial.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Statements defamatory in natural and ordinary meaning
- Statements defamatory by innuendo
- Striking Out
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to strike out the action.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Want of reasonable cause of action
- Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
- Abuse of process of court
- Determination of question of law or construction of document without trial
- Outcome: The court ruled that this case was not suitable for determination without a full trial.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for defamation
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Defamation Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 374 | Singapore | Cited for the principles for striking out an action under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. |
| John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin | Australian High Court | Yes | [2003] HCA 50 | Australia | Cited regarding the importance of headlines and the intrusion of irrelevant information in assessing defamation. |
| Dundee Bancorp Inc v Fairvest Corp | Ontario Superior Court of Justice | Yes | [2005] OJ No 2699 | Canada | Cited regarding defamation resulting from the omission of important relevant facts. |
| McCann v Scottish Media Newspapers Ltd | Scottish Court of Session | Yes | [2000] SLT 256 | Scotland | Cited regarding the need for the claimant to set out the meaning of the words complained of in defamation cases. |
| Microsoft Corporation & Ors v SM Summit Holdings Ltd & Anor and other appeals | N/A | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 529 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the natural and ordinary meaning of words alleged to be defamatory may be determined under O 14 r 12. |
| Keays v Murdoch Magazines (UK) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1991] 1 WLR 1184 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the potential for preliminary issues to cause unnecessary delay and expense. |
| Tilling v Whiteman | N/A | Yes | [1980] AC 1 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the potential for preliminary points of law to be 'too often treacherous short cuts'. |
| Murugason v The Straits Times Press (1975) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1984-1985] SLR 334 | Singapore | Cited regarding the right to prove facts extrinsic to the words that give rise to defamation by way of innuendo. |
| Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David and others | N/A | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR 608 | Singapore | Cited regarding the extent of knowledge of an ordinary reasonable person in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of allegedly defamatory words. |
| Goldsmith v Sperrings | N/A | Yes | [1977] 1 WLR 478 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the strong evidence required to stay an action as an abuse of process. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 14 Rule 12 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
| Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 210 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 211 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Defamation
- Explanatory Statement
- Scheme Creditors
- Raffles Town Club
- Striking out
- Innuendo
- Qualified privilege
- Absolute privilege
- Justification
15.2 Keywords
- defamation
- striking out
- explanatory statement
- raffles town club
- singapore
- civil procedure
16. Subjects
- Defamation
- Civil Procedure
- Striking Out
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort
- Defamation