ABZ v Singapore Press Holdings: Defamation, Publication, and Qualified Privilege

In ABZ v Singapore Press Holdings Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed a defamation claim brought by ABZ, the owner of a childcare center, against Singapore Press Holdings Ltd for publishing an article about a child who contracted hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD). The plaintiff claimed the article implied negligence in managing HFMD, leading to the child's illness. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that while the article was capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, the defense of qualified privilege applied, and there was no evidence of malice.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed a defamation claim concerning an article about a child with HFMD, focusing on defamatory meaning, justification, and qualified privilege.

1.7 Decision Date

11 August 2009

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Singapore Press Holdings Ltd.	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Ramesh s/o Selvaraj of Allen & Gledhill LLP Ramesh Kumar of Allen & Gledhill LLP Andrew Yeo of Allen & Gledhill LLP
ABZ	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Dismissed	Anthony Leonard Netto of C H Chan & Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lee Seiu Kin	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ramesh s/o Selvaraj	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Ramesh Kumar	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Andrew Yeo	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Anthony Leonard Netto	C H Chan & Co

4. Facts

The defendant published an article about a 13-month-old boy, [B], who was critically ill with hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD).
The article mentioned that [B] may have caught the bug from his older cousin, [D], who attended the plaintiff's childcare center.
The article stated that [C], [B]'s mother, was upset that the center did not inform parents about HFMD cases.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) had issued a press release about the HFMD situation, including [B]'s case.
The defendant attempted to contact the plaintiff for comment before publishing the article but received no response.
[D] was diagnosed with HFMD on 14 May 2008.
The number of HFMD cases notified to MOH was 729 in the week ending 24 May 2008, past the epidemic threshold.

5. Formal Citations

ABZ v Singapore Press Holdings Ltd, Suit 413/2008, [2009] SGHC 182

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-05-23	Article published in The Straits Times
2008-05-14	[D] diagnosed with HFMD
2008-05-16	[B] developed a fever
2008-05-18	[B] admitted to KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital
2008-05-19	[B]'s blood pressure dropped and he fainted; transferred to ICU
2008-05-22	Salma received an e-mail from Miss Lim, a media relations executive at the Ministry of Health
2008-05-22	Salma interviewed [B]’s parents at KK Hospital
2009-08-12	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Defamation
- Outcome: The court found that the article was capable of bearing a defamatory meaning but the defense of qualified privilege applied, and there was no evidence of malice.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Defamatory meaning
  - Justification
  - Qualified privilege
  - Malice
- Related Cases:
  - [1999] 4 SLR 529
  - [1996] 1 SLR 623
  - [2001] 3 SLR 380
Qualified Privilege
- Outcome: The court held that the article was published on an occasion of qualified privilege because it concerned a matter of public health and the defendant had a duty to communicate the information to the public.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Duty to communicate
  - Interest to receive information
  - Malice
- Related Cases:
  - [2001] 2 AC 127
  - [2007] 1 AC 359
  - [2007] 1 SLR 675
  - [2009] 1 SLR 177
  - (1834) 1 C M & R 181
  - [1918] WN 368
  - [1917] AC 309
  - [1889] 23 QBD 400
  - (1984) 150 DLR (3d) 208
  - [2008] 3 SLR 236
  - [I975] AC 135
Justification
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant had not proved its case of justification as there was no evidence to prove that [D] contracted HFMD whilst at the Centre, and that in turn, [B] himself contracted HFMD from [D].
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1986] 1 WLR 147
  - [1988] 1 WLR 49
  - [1988] 1 WLR 77
  - [1990] 1 MLJ 390
  - [2009] SGHC 31

8. Remedies Sought

General and aggravated damages for libel
Injunction to restrain the defendant from further publishing defamatory articles

9. Cause of Actions

Defamation

10. Practice Areas

Defamation Litigation
Media and Publishing Law

11. Industries

Media
Education

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Microsoft Corp v SM Summit Holdings Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 529	Singapore	Cited for the general principles applicable in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of alleged defamatory words.
Aaron v Cheong Yip Seng	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 623	Singapore	Cited for the objective test of whether words are defamatory and the applicable legal principles for the defence of justification.
De Souza Tay & Goh v Singapore Press Holdings Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2001] 3 SLR 380	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an article must be examined as a whole to determine if it is defamatory.
Reynolds v Times Newspaper Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[2001] 2 AC 127	England and Wales	Cited in relation to the defence of qualified privilege, but ultimately not relied upon due to its rejection in Singapore jurisprudence.
Jameel (Mohammed) v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl	House of Lords	Yes	[2007] 1 AC 359	England and Wales	Cited to distinguish the Reynolds defence from traditional qualified privilege.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR 675	Singapore	Cited for the rejection of the Reynolds defence in Singapore law.
Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR 177	Singapore	Cited for the rejection of the Reynolds defence in Singapore law.
Toogood v Spyring	Court of Exchequer	Yes	(1834) 1 C M & R 181	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that qualified privilege exists for the common convenience and welfare of society.
Gerhold v Baker	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1918] WN 368	England and Wales	Cited for the public interest in allowing free speech on occasions when it is a duty to speak.
Adam v Ward	House of Lords	Yes	[1917] AC 309	England and Wales	Cited for the summary of the common law position on qualified privilege.
Allbutt v The General Council of Medical Education and Registration	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1889] 23 QBD 400	England and Wales	Cited as an example of qualified privilege extending to information concerning public health.
Camporese v Parton	British Columbia Court of Appeal	Yes	(1984) 150 DLR (3d) 208	Canada	Cited as an example of qualified privilege extending to information concerning public health.
Hytech Builders Pte Ltd v Goh Teng Poh Karen	High Court	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR 236	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a plaintiff can defeat the defence of qualified privilege by proving that the publication of the alleged defamatory words was actuated by malice.
Horrocks v Lowe	House of Lords	Yes	[I975] AC 135	England and Wales	Cited for the principles regarding the role of motive and honesty of belief in the truth of defamatory statements in determining whether malice is present.
Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1986] 1 WLR 147	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a defendant pleading justification must inform the plaintiff and the court precisely what meaning or meanings he seeks to justify.
Viscount De L’Isle v Times Newspaper Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1988] 1 WLR 49	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a defendant pleading justification must inform the plaintiff and the court precisely what meaning or meanings he seeks to justify.
Prager v Times Newspapers Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1988] 1 WLR 77	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a defendant pleading justification must inform the plaintiff and the court precisely what meaning or meanings he seeks to justify.
Lee Kuan Yew v Derek Gwyn Davies & Ors	High Court	Yes	[1990] 1 MLJ 390	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that a defendant pleading justification must inform the plaintiff and the court precisely what meaning or meanings he seeks to justify.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lim Jian Wei	High Court	Yes	[2009] SGHC 31	Singapore	Cited for the principle that to succeed in a plea of justification, the defendant need not prove the truth of every detail of the words published, but only the truth of the “sting of the charge”.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Goh Chok Tong	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1984-1985] SLR 516	Singapore	Cited 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.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 310	Singapore	Cited 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.
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR 337	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the natural and ordinary meaning of words is not confined to its literal or strict meaning, but includes inferences or implications that the ordinary man would draw from those words in light of his general knowledge, common sense and experience.
Rubber Improvement Ltd v Daily Telegraph Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1964] AC 234	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the natural and ordinary meaning of words is not confined to its literal or strict meaning, but includes inferences or implications that the ordinary man would draw from those words in light of his general knowledge, common sense and experience.
Sim v Stretch	House of Lords	Yes	(1936) 52 TLR 669	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that it is difficult to formulate a “comprehensive definition” of “defamation”.
Griffiths v Benn	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1911) 27 TLR 346	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the words used convey to the mind of any reasonable man a personal imputation upon the plaintiff, either upon its character or upon its mode in which the plaintiff’s business is carried on.
Charleston v News Group Newspapers	House of Lords	Yes	[1995] 2 AC 65	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that where a publication is not defamatory if considered as a whole, the plaintiff cannot succeed on the ground that some readers will have read part only of the published matter and that this part, considered in isolation, is capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.
Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd	Federal Court of Australia	Yes	(2004) 204 ALR 193	Australia	Cited for the principle that the categories of qualified privilege “can never be catalogued and rendered exact”.
The Globe And Mail Ltd v Boland	Supreme Court of Canada	Yes	(1960) 22 DLR (2d) 277	Canada	Cited for the principle that the right of a publisher of a newspaper to report truthfully and comment fairly on matters of public interest must not be confused with a duty of the sort that gives rise to an occasion of qualified privilege.

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

Hand, foot, and mouth disease
HFMD
Defamation
Qualified privilege
Malice
Justification
Press release
Public health
Childcare center
Negligence

15.2 Keywords

defamation
qualified privilege
HFMD
Singapore
press
media
childcare

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Defamation	95
Measure of Damages	5
Contract Law	5

16. Subjects

Defamation
Media Law
Public Health
Tort Law