Zhu Yong Zhen v American International Assurance: Breach of Contract & Defamation
In Zhu Yong Zhen v American International Assurance Co, Ltd and another, the High Court of Singapore heard applications from all parties. The Plaintiff, Zhu Yong Zhen, sued American International Assurance Co, Ltd for breach of contract and her former lawyer for alleged collusion. American International Assurance counterclaimed for defamation based on the Plaintiff's online blog. The court struck out the Plaintiff's claims against both defendants and granted in part the First Defendant's application for summary determination, finding the Plaintiff's statements to be defamatory.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claims struck out; First Defendant's application for summary determination granted in part.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiff sued insurance company for breach of contract and lawyer for collusion. Court struck out Plaintiff's claims and found defamatory statements.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Second defendant | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | |
| Zhu Yong Zhen | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | |
| American International Assurance Co, Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment in favour of the First Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Tai-Hui Jason | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Adrian Wong | Rajah & Tann LLP |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff purchased a life insurance policy from the First Defendant in 1993.
- The policy included a Critical Year feature, where premiums would be paid from dividends after a certain year.
- Plaintiff was given a Policy Benefit Illustration (PBI) showing a Critical Year of 16.
- The policy application form stated that the policy and application constitute the entire contract.
- Plaintiff set up a blog alleging misconduct by the First Defendant.
- Plaintiff engaged the Second Defendant, a lawyer, to sue the First Defendant.
- Plaintiff claimed the Second Defendant's draft writ of summons was problematic and colluded with the First Defendant.
5. Formal Citations
- Zhu Yong Zhen v American International Assurance Co, Ltd and another, Suit No 515 of 2009 Summonses No. 4895, 4926, 4952 & 5561 of 2009, [2010] SGHC 115
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Policy Benefit Illustration provided to Plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff submitted application form for insurance policy | |
| Plaintiff set up online web log | |
| First Defendant's solicitors demanded Plaintiff de-activate blog | |
| Plaintiff de-activated blog | |
| Plaintiff engaged Engelin Teh Practice | |
| Plaintiff directed Engelin Teh Practice to stop activities on her case | |
| Plaintiff engaged the Second Defendant | |
| Second Defendant informed Plaintiff he needed more time to complete draft Writ of Summons | |
| Second Defendant emailed draft Writ of Summons to Plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff informed Second Defendant she would get someone else to take her case | |
| Second Defendant requested payment of S$1,800.00 | |
| Plaintiff filed writ of summons against both defendants | |
| SUM 4895, 4926 and 4952 of 2009 were heard | |
| SUM 5561 was heard | |
| Parties to appear for judgment to be delivered for all applications | |
| Plaintiff's appeal heard before a Judicial Commissioner in Chambers | |
| Case fixed for hearing before me for delivery of judgment on the four applications | |
| Parties to appear for a hearing for judgment to be delivered, and to hear any submissions on costs | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the policy benefit illustration did not have contractual effect and was not enforceable against the First Defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Contractual effect of policy benefit illustration
- Interpretation of policy terms
- Related Cases:
- [2009] SGCA 3
- [2007] SGCA 22
- Defamation
- Outcome: The court determined the natural and ordinary meaning of the Plaintiff's statements to be defamatory.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Natural and ordinary meaning of defamatory statements
- Truth as a defense
- Related Cases:
- [2009] SGCA 46
- [1997] SGHC 243
- Collusion
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff failed to prove any collusion between the First and Second Defendants.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Inappropriate conduct
- Problematic draft of the writ of summons
8. Remedies Sought
- Liquidated Damages
- Unliquidated Damages
- Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Defamation
- Collusion
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Defamation
- Insurance Litigation
11. Industries
- Insurance
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] SGCA 3 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements of a valid contract: identifiable agreement, which is complete and certain. |
| Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] SGCA 22 | Singapore | Cited regarding the effect of entire agreement clauses. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in an O 18 r 19(1)(a) application, the Court will consider whether there is a cause of action with some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleading are considered. |
| Tan Eng Khiam v Ultra Realty Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR(R) 844 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that striking out is a draconian measure, and that the Court will allow a plaintiff to proceed with the action unless the case is wholly and completely unarguable. |
| Quah Kay Tee v Ong and Co Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 637 | Singapore | Cited for the law on conspiracy by unlawful means requires proof of intention to injure or damage the Plaintiff, while conspiracy by lawful means requires proof of a predominant purpose to cause injury or damage to the Plaintiff. |
| Recordtv Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 43 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proof of intention or predominant purpose can be inferred from facts. |
| Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and Others v Basil Anthony Herman | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 214 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the issue of truth was determined at later proceedings or at trial. |
| Microsoft Corp and others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] SGCA 72 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the natural and ordinary meaning of allegedly defamatory words is a question that is suitable for determination under O 14 r 12(1), as long as such determination would fully resolve the issue as to the meaning of the words of the action. |
| Microsoft Corp and others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 465 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in a defamation action, so far as the meaning of the words is concerned, the only question before the judge is whether the words complained of bear the defamatory meaning as pleaded or some lesser defamatory meaning. |
| Review Publishing Co Ltd and Another v Lee Hsien Loong and Another Appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] SGCA 46 | Singapore | Cited for the test for determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the offending words in a defamation action. |
| Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin | High Court | Yes | [1997] SGHC 243 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the source of the words matters in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. |
| Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 46 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the natural and ordinary meaning of the words would tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, then such words are defamatory. |
| Bored Piling (Pte) Ltd v James Siow Lai Huat & Ors | High Court | Yes | [1996] SGHC 248 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the 'sting' of sarcasm is in the reasonable inference to be drawn. |
| DHKW Marketing and another v Nature's Farm Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 774 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an allegation of fraudulent acts is clearly defamatory. |
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
- Policy Benefit Illustration
- Critical Year
- Defamatory Statements
- Collusion
- Entire Agreement Clause
- Singapore Financial Guardian
15.2 Keywords
- insurance
- breach of contract
- defamation
- collusion
- critical year
- policy benefit illustration
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Breach of Contract | 75 |
| Contract Law | 70 |
| Insurance | 65 |
| Defamation | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 55 |
| Insurance Bad Faith | 50 |
| Summary Judgement | 45 |
| Commercial Insurance | 40 |
| Settlement Agreement | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Defamation
- Insurance