Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei: Defamation Damages for Business Mismanagement

In Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed the issue of damages to be awarded to the appellant, Lim Eng Hock Peter, in a defamation action against the respondents, Lin Jian Wei. The court awarded the appellant $210,000 in damages, comprising $140,000 for general damages and $70,000 for aggravated damages, for defamatory statements concerning the appellant's competence and integrity in managing businesses. The court dismissed the appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed; damages awarded to the Appellant.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal addressed the quantum of damages for defamation, awarding $210,000 to Lim Eng Hock Peter for allegations of business mismanagement.

1.7 Decision Date

27 July 2010

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lim Eng Hock Peter	Appellant	Individual	Appeal dismissed; damages awarded	Partial	Koh Swee Yen of Wong Partnership LLP Chan Hock Keng of Wong Partnership LLP Suegene Ang of Wong Partnership LLP Alvin Yeo of Wong Partnership LLP Reina Chua of Wong Partnership LLP
Lin Jian Wei	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Lost	Ang Cheng Hock of Allen & Gledhill LLP William Ong of Allen & Gledhill LLP Kristy Tan of Allen & Gledhill LLP Ramesh Selvaraj of Allen & Gledhill LLP

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
Koh Swee Yen	Wong Partnership LLP
Chan Hock Keng	Wong Partnership LLP
Suegene Ang	Wong Partnership LLP
Alvin Yeo	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

The Appellant succeeded in his defamation action against the Respondents in a prior judgment.
The defamatory statements attacked the Appellant’s competence and integrity in managing businesses.
The Respondents alleged the Appellant culpably mismanaged Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd.
The allegations included approving excessive dividends and permitting offsetting of loans against dividends.
The Appellant is a prominent businessman and investor, known as the “remisier king”.
The defamatory statements were published to over 17,000 members of the Raffles Town Club.
The Respondents pleaded the defence of justification unjustifiably and refused to apologize.

5. Formal Citations

Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal, Civil Appeals Nos 25 and 38 of 2009, [2010] SGCA 26
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal, , [2009] SGCA 48

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2009-01-01	Civil Appeals Nos 25 and 38 of 2009
2010-07-28	Judgment reserved
2009-01-01	Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal [2009] SGCA 48
2005-11-02	Explanatory Statement dated

7. Legal Issues

Quantum of Damages for Defamation
- Outcome: The court determined the appropriate quantum of damages, awarding $140,000 for general damages and $70,000 for aggravated damages.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Aggravated Damages
  - General Damages
- Related Cases:
  - [2001] 1 SLR(R) 86
  - [1966] 117 CLR 118
  - [1972] AC 1027
  - [1965] 2 QB 86
  - [1995] 2 SCR 1130
  - [2004] 1 AC 628
  - [2003] 1 QB 281
  - (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
  - [1979–1980] SLR(R) 24
  - [1996] 1 SLR(R) 840
  - [2007] 1 SLR(R) 675
  - [2009] 1 SLR(R) 642
  - [1995] 1 SLR(R) 856
  - [1997] 1 SLR(R) 220
  - [2006] EMLR 11
  - [2010] EWHC 476 (QB)
  - [2000] 49 OR (3d) 161
  - [2009] HKCFI 1046
  - [1999] 2 SLR(R) 462
  - [2004] 1 SLR(R) 153
  - [2003] SGHC 217
  - [2005] 1 SLR(R) 277
  - [2005] 3 SLR(R) 608
  - [1998] 2 SLR(R) 971
  - [2010] SGCA 15

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Defamation

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Finance
Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 86	Singapore	Cited for the functions of general damages awarded in defamation actions.
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd	High Court of Australia	Yes	[1966] 117 CLR 118	Australia	Cited for the vindicatory and consolatory functions of general damages.
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome and Another	House of Lords	Yes	[1972] AC 1027	United Kingdom	Approved the passage in Uren regarding the vindicatory and consolatory functions of general damages.
McCarey v Associated Newspapers Ltd (No 2)	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1965] 2 QB 86	United Kingdom	Commented on general damages including pecuniary loss, social disadvantages, injury to feelings, and contumelious behavior.
Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto	Supreme Court of Canada	Yes	[1995] 2 SCR 1130	Canada	Cited for the lasting impact of defamatory statements.
The Gleaner Co Ltd and another v Abrahams	Privy Council	Yes	[2004] 1 AC 628	United Kingdom	Cited for the deterrent effect of damages in defamation cases.
Kiam v MGN Ltd	Queen's Bench	Yes	[2003] 1 QB 281	United Kingdom	Discussed the importance of awarding adequate damages to deter future libels.
Crampton v Nugawela	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	(1996) 41 NSWLR 176	Australia	Cited for the importance of reputation in a person's life, particularly for professionals.
Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin	High Court	Yes	[1979–1980] SLR(R) 24	Singapore	Cited as an example of damages awarded to a Prime Minister for slander.
Lee Kuan Yew v Vinocur John and others	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR(R) 840	Singapore	Cited as an example of damages awarded to a Senior Minister for defamation.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 675	Singapore	Cited as an example of damages awarded to a Prime Minister for defamation.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 642	Singapore	Cited as an example of damages awarded to a Prime Minister for defamation.
Chiam See Tong v Xin Zhang Jiang Restaurant Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR(R) 856	Singapore	Cited as an example of damages awarded to a Member of Parliament for defamation.
Au Mun Chew (practising as Au & Associates) v Lim Ban Lee	High Court	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR(R) 220	Singapore	Cited as an example of damages awarded to a professional (architect) for defamation.
Galloway v Telegraph Group Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] EMLR 11	United Kingdom	Cited as an example of damages awarded to a Member of Parliament in the UK for defamation.
Berezovsky v Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Co	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2010] EWHC 476 (QB)	United Kingdom	Cited as an example of damages awarded for defamation in the UK.
Hodgson v Canadian Newspapers Co	Ontario Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 49 OR (3d) 161	Canada	Cited as an example of damages awarded for defamation in Canada.
John Simpson Warham v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd	Court of First Instance of the Hong Kong SAR	Yes	[2009] HKCFI 1046	Hong Kong	Cited as an example of damages awarded for defamation in Hong Kong.
A Balakrishnan and others v Nirumalan K Pillay and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 462	Singapore	Cited for the principle that damages should be less when the plaintiff is not a public figure.
Ei-Nets Ltd and another v Yeo Nai Meng	High Court	Yes	[2004] 1 SLR(R) 153	Singapore	Cited as an example of damages awarded for defamation of an employee.
TJ System (S) Pte Ltd and Others v Ngow Kheong Shen (No 2)	High Court	Yes	[2003] SGHC 217	Singapore	Cited as an example of damages awarded for defamation of a company and its employees.
Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David and others	High Court	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 277	Singapore	Cited as a case where the court would have awarded $60,000 if damages had been awarded.
Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR(R) 608	Singapore	Cited as a case where the High Court decision was upheld.
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin and another action	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR(R) 971	Singapore	Cited for the approach to awarding damages in defamation cases.
Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] SGCA 15	Singapore	Cited for the need to demarcate and explain damages awarded for defamation and aggravating conduct.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Defamation
General Damages
Aggravated Damages
Quantum of Damages
Public Figure
Business Mismanagement
Raffles Town Club
Explanatory Statement
Scheme of Arrangement
Justification Defence

15.2 Keywords

defamation
damages
Singapore
business
mismanagement
reputation
court of appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Defamation	100
Measure of Damages	70
Civil Procedure	30

16. Subjects

Defamation
Damages
Civil Litigation