Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei: Defamation & Qualified Privilege
Lim Eng Hock Peter sued Lin Jian Wei and Tung Yu-Lien Margaret for defamation in the High Court of Singapore, arising from statements in an Explanatory Statement regarding Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd's financial difficulties. The High Court dismissed the claim, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision on 08 October 2009, finding the statements defamatory and not protected by qualified privilege due to the respondents' malice and improper purpose. The Court of Appeal awarded damages and costs to Lim Eng Hock Peter.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeals allowed in Civil Appeal No 25 of 2009 and Civil Appeal No 38 of 2009 and set aside the Judge’s decision. There will be judgment for the Appellant for damages and costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Defamation claim by Lim Eng Hock Peter against Lin Jian Wei and Tung Yu-Lien Margaret dismissed in High Court, reversed on appeal. Issue: Qualified privilege.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Eng Hock Peter | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Alvin Yeo, Chan Hock Keng, Koh Swee Yen, Suegene Ang, Reina Chua |
| Lin Jian Wei | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Ang Cheng Hock, William Ong, Kristy Tan, Ramesh Selvaraj |
| Tung Yu-Lien Margaret | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Ang Cheng Hock, William Ong, Kristy Tan, Ramesh Selvaraj |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Alvin Yeo | Wong Partnership LLP |
| Chan Hock Keng | Wong Partnership LLP |
| Koh Swee Yen | Wong Partnership LLP |
| Suegene Ang | Wong Partnership LLP |
| Reina Chua | Wong Partnership LLP |
| Ang Cheng Hock | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| William Ong | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Kristy Tan | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Ramesh Selvaraj | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- Lim Eng Hock Peter claimed he was defamed by passages in an Explanatory Statement (ES) regarding a Scheme of Arrangement proposed by Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd.
- The Respondents, Lin Jian Wei and Tung Yu-Lien Margaret, were the controlling shareholders and directors of Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd.
- The ES was published to explain the Scheme to members of Raffles Town Club.
- The Appellant alleged that the Extracts in the ES called into question his competence and/or integrity in managing the Company prior to April 2001.
- The Company had collected more than $500 million in entrance fees and had an annual income stream of $20.4 million in subscription fees.
- The Company was unable to pay the damages at any of these levels as it had insufficient funds.
- The Respondents concealed their past actions in taking out all the cash assets of the Company in the form of dividends in order to, inter alia, avoid paying the damages payable to the Scheme creditors.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and Another and Another Appeal, CA 25/2009, 38/2009, [2009] SGCA 48
- Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei, , [2009] 2 SLR 1004
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd purchased a 30-year lease on land. | |
| Raffles Town Club invited selected members of the public to join the Club at a discounted price. | |
| Raffles Town Club opened. | |
| Existing shareholders sold their shares in Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd to the Respondents. | |
| Original members wrote to the Company and demanded compensation. | |
| Original members made a claim for $120,484,000. | |
| 4,895 members filed Suit No 1441 of 2001 against the Company. | |
| The High Court dismissed Suit No 1441 of 2001. | |
| The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's decision in Suit No 1441 of 2001. | |
| Damages were assessed by the High Court at $1,000 per member. | |
| The Company's assets were made up of cash reserves of $1 million, $7 million in receivables and $5.8 million paid into court. | |
| The Court of Appeal increased the damages to $3,000 per member. | |
| The Company obtained the approval of the court in OS No 1164 of 2005 to convene the Scheme creditors’ meeting. | |
| The application to appoint a special receiver and manager was dismissed by the High Court. | |
| Explanatory Statement (ES) was dated. | |
| The Company sent a copy of the ES to each of the 17,374 Scheme creditors. | |
| 90% of the members voted to approve the Scheme. | |
| The Scheme was approved by the court. | |
| Court of Appeal delivered judgment. |
7. Legal Issues
- Defamation
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the statements were defamatory of the Appellant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Meaning of defamatory statements
- Reference to plaintiff
- Publication of defamatory statements
- Qualified Privilege
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the Respondents were not protected by qualified privilege due to their malice and improper purpose.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Common or mutual interest
- Legal duty to publish
- Malice
- Excess of duty
- Malice
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the Respondents acted with malice in publishing the defamatory statements.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Desire to injure
- Knowledge of falsity
- Recklessness as to falsity
- Abuse of occasion
- Improper motive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Defamation Law
11. Industries
- Hospitality
- Recreation
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei | High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR 1004 | Singapore | The High Court's decision in this case was appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed the decision. |
| Re Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] SGHC 178 | Singapore | Cited regarding the dismissal of the application to appoint a special receiver and manager. |
| Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] NSWCA 47 | Australia | Cited regarding the issue of qualified privilege and the connection between the published material and the occasion of privilege. |
| Horrocks v Lowe | House of Lords | Yes | [1975] AC 135 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the protection of qualified privilege is lost if the occasion giving rise to it is misused and for the test of malice. |
| Hytech Builders Pte Ltd v Goh Teng Poh Karen | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR 236 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that motive rather than honesty of belief was the essential indicator of the existence of express malice. |
| Yeo Nai Meng v Ei-Nets Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR 73 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the improper motive was to advance or protect their own interest, then the Respondents would be able to claim the protection of the privilege. |
| Tan Chor Chuan v Tan Yeow Hiang Kenneth | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR 16 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the improper motive was to advance or protect their own interest, then the Respondents would be able to claim the protection of the privilege. |
| Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR 277 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that malice must be a causative factor leading to the publication and the threshold of proving malice is high. |
| Maidstone Pte Ltd v Takenaka Corp | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 772 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should be slow to draw such an inference. |
| Adam v Ward | House of Lords | Yes | [1917] AC 309 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that privilege does not extend to matters wholly irrelevant and unconnected with the discharge of the prescribed duty. |
| Siti v Lee Kay Li | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR 310 | Singapore | Interpreted O 57 r 9A(5) of the Rules of Court. |
| Roberts v Bass | High Court of Australia | Yes | 212 CLR 1 | Australia | Cited for the principles of express malice and improper motive in the context of qualified privilege. |
| Lillie v Newcastle City Council | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2002] EWHC 1600 (QB) | England and Wales | Cited for the observation that there is no example of malice having been found (in a case where the judge or jury concluded that the relevant defendant was honest) simply on the basis that the dominant motive was to injure the claimant. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 57 r 9A(5) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Defamation
- Qualified privilege
- Malice
- Explanatory Statement
- Scheme of Arrangement
- Raffles Town Club
- Scheme creditors
- Dominant motive
- Improper purpose
- Financial difficulties
15.2 Keywords
- Defamation
- Qualified privilege
- Malice
- Scheme of Arrangement
- Companies Act
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
16. Subjects
- Defamation
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
- Corporate Law
17. Areas of Law
- Defamation
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
- Appeals