Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security: Defamation, Wrongful Dismissal & Subpoena Dispute

In Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and others, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal against the High Court's decision regarding a defamation claim and a counterclaim for wrongful dismissal. Basil, a former security executive, was sued for defamation after sending letters alleging wrongful dismissal and substandard security services. The High Court rejected Basil's defenses and dismissed his counterclaim. The Court of Appeal set aside the decision and ordered a new trial, citing the improper rejection of evidence from potential witnesses who could have provided relevant information about the quality of Premier's services and the circumstances of Basil's dismissal. The court also addressed legal issues concerning the defenses of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Decision of the Judge set aside and a new trial ordered on Basil's defences and his counterclaim.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal concerning defamation and wrongful dismissal. The court ordered a retrial due to the improper rejection of evidence related to the quality of security services.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Basil Anthony HermanAppellantIndividualAppeal Allowed in PartPartial
Premier Security Co-Operative LtdRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Saraj Din s/o Sher MohamedRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Annie Leow Cher KhengRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Singa RetnamKertar & Co
Hope WeeKertar & Co
Wong Soon Peng AdrianRajah & Tann LLP
Ho Hua ChyiRajah & Tann LLP
Teo Shu QiuRajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

  1. Basil, a former police officer, was employed by Premier Security Co-operative Ltd.
  2. Basil's employment was terminated in December 2006, leading to a dispute.
  3. Basil wrote letters of complaint alleging wrongful dismissal and substandard services.
  4. Premier sued Basil for defamation based on the contents of the letters.
  5. Basil counterclaimed for wrongful dismissal and defamation.
  6. The High Court rejected Basil's defenses and dismissed his counterclaim.
  7. The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial due to the improper rejection of evidence.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and others, Civil Appeal No 128 of 2009, [2010] SGCA 15
  2. Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and others v Basil Anthony Herman, , [2009] SGHC 214

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Basil retired from the Singapore Police Force.
Basil joined Premier Security Co-operative Ltd as a security executive.
Internal e-mails detail SBS's complaints about Premier's security guards.
Basil's employment was terminated by Premier.
Basil wrote letters of complaint against the respondents.
Premier replied to the Ministry of Manpower's request for information.
Respondents demanded Basil cease making statements and apologize.
Respondents initiated a defamation action against Basil.
Respondents filed Summons No 2599 of 2007.
Summons No 3682 of 2008 was dismissed.
Summons No 4221 of 2008 was heard.
Basil issued subpoenas to the disallowed witnesses.
Respondents filed Summons No 901 of 2009.
Basil filed Summons No 905 of 2009.
Judge heard Summons No 901 of 2009 and Summons No 905 of 2009.
Basil filed Summons No 1018 of 2009.
Judge heard Summons No 1018 of 2009.
Private investigator's report was issued.
Hearing before the Court of Appeal; Basil sought to adduce fresh evidence.
Judgment reserved by the Court of Appeal.
Parties heard on the issue of costs.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Defamation
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the distinct requirements of the standard defences to defamation did not seem to have been fully appreciated in the proceedings below.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Justification
      • Fair Comment
      • Qualified Privilege
      • Malice
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] 1 SLR 52
  2. Wrongful Dismissal
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial to determine whether Basil was wrongfully dismissed.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the Judge ought not to have set aside the subpoenas that were addressed to the disallowed witnesses.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Relevance of Evidence
      • Subpoenas
      • Discovery

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Injunction
  3. Declaration of Wrongful Dismissal

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation
  • Wrongful Dismissal

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Employment Litigation

11. Industries

  • Security Services
  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and others v Basil Anthony HermanHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 214SingaporeThe judgment under appeal; the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's decision.
Auto Clean ‘N’ Shine Services (a firm) v Eastern Publishing Associates Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 427SingaporeCited for the principle that a balance should be struck between complying with rules and the parties’ right to call witnesses.
Reynolds v Times Newspapers LtdHouse of LordsYes[2001] 2 AC 127England and WalesCited for the exacting test to satisfy when seeking a new trial.
Susilawati v American Express Bank LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 737SingaporeCited for the observation that the grounds on which a new trial may be ordered have not been statutorily fleshed out.
George Bray v John Rawlinson FordHouse of LordsYes[1896] AC 44England and WalesCited for the principle that each case for a new trial must turn on its own facts.
Ku Chiu Chung Woody v Tang Tin SungHong Kong Court of AppealYes[2003] HKEC 727Hong KongCited for the factors the Court of Appeal considers when ordering a retrial.
Chia Bak Eng and another v Punggol Bus Service CoCourt of AppealYes[1965–1967] SLR(R) 270SingaporeCited as an example of when a new trial would ordinarily be ordered.
Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 52SingaporeCited for the distinct requirements of the standard defences to defamation, viz, justification, fair comment and qualified privilege.
Tse Wai Chun Paul v Albert ChengHong Kong Court of Final AppealYes[2001] EMLR 31Hong KongCited for the distinction between the type of malice which defeats the defence of qualified privilege and that which defeats the defence of fair comment.
Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David and othersCourt of AppealYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 608SingaporeCited for quoting Tse Wai Chun Paul v Albert Cheng with approval.
Rubber Improvement Ltd and another v Daily Telegraph LtdHouse of LordsYes[1964] AC 234England and WalesCited for the principle that a company cannot be injured in its feelings, it can only be injured in its pocket.
Messenger Newspapers Group Ltd v National Graphical AssociationEnglish High CourtYes[1984] IRLR 397England and WalesCited for the contrasting positions taken in the English High Court cases of Messenger Newspapers Group Ltd v National Graphical Association.
Collins Stewart v The Financial Times LtdEnglish High CourtYes[2005] EMLR 5England and WalesCited for the contrasting positions taken in the English High Court cases of Collins Stewart v The Financial Times Ltd.
Microsoft Corp and others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and another and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 465SingaporeCited for the holding that the natural and ordinary meaning of allegedly defamatory words is a question which is suitable for determination under O 14 R 12 of the Rules.
Bank of Chia v AsiaweekHigh CourtYes[1991] 1 SLR(R) 230SingaporeCited for the principle that the plaintiff in a defamation action ought to apply for an O 14 R 12 determination of the natural and ordinary meaning of allegedly defamatory words/statements only where there are clearly no triable defences.
Chee Siok Chin and another v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 541SingaporeCited for the principle that the plaintiff in a defamation action ought to apply for an O 14 R 12 determination of the natural and ordinary meaning of allegedly defamatory words/statements only where there are clearly no triable defences.
Cohen v Daily Telegraph LtdCourt of AppealYes[1968] 1 WLR 916England and WalesCited for the principle that events that occur after the defamation are never relevant to establishing the defence of fair comment.
Richard McGivney v Rustico Summer Haven (1977) LimitedSupreme Court of Prince Edward IslandYes(1989) 81 Nfld & PEIR 293CanadaCited as a case where costs were reserved to the trial judge hearing a retrial.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 14 R 12 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed)
O 39 R 14 of the Rules of Court
O 38 R 14(2) of the Rules of Court
O 57 R 14 of the Rules
O 38 R 2 of the Rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Employment Act (Cap 91, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defamation
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Subpoena
  • Justification
  • Fair Comment
  • Qualified Privilege
  • Malice
  • Discovery
  • New Trial
  • Relevance of Evidence

15.2 Keywords

  • defamation
  • wrongful dismissal
  • subpoena
  • evidence
  • retrial
  • security services

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Defamation90
Unfair Dismissal80
Employment Law70
Evidence60
Civil Procedure50
Contract Law30
Estoppel10

16. Subjects

  • Defamation
  • Employment
  • Civil Procedure
  • Evidence