Segar Ashok v Koh Fonn Lyn Veronica: Defamation and Partnership Dispute over Jewellery Business
In two consolidated suits, Segar Ashok sued Koh Fonn Lyn Veronica for libel based on emails, while Veronica countersued for libel and slander, also seeking recovery of funds from private dealings. Additionally, Veronica sued Dr. Segar over disputes arising from their terminated jewellery business partnership, seeking an account of partnership assets. The High Court of Singapore ruled in favor of Dr. Segar on the libel claim, awarding damages of $10,000, dismissed Veronica's counterclaim for libel and slander, ordered Dr. Segar to pay Veronica $132,484.91 with interest, dismissed Dr. Segar's counterclaim in the partnership dispute, and ordered a taking of accounts for the partnership.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff on libel claim; counterclaim for libel dismissed; order for taking of partnership accounts.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dr. Segar sues Veronica for libel; Veronica countersues for defamation and partnership account. The court addresses defamation claims and partnership disputes.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Segar Ashok | Plaintiff, Defendant | Individual | Claim Allowed | Won | Devinder K Rai, Subramaniam |
| Koh Fonn Lyn Veronica | Defendant, Plaintiff | Individual | Counterclaim Dismissed, Partial Judgment | Lost, Partial | Giam Chin Toon, Hui Choon Wai |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Devinder K Rai | Acies Law Corporation |
| Subramaniam | Acies Law Corporation |
| Giam Chin Toon | Wee Swee Teow & Co |
| Hui Choon Wai | Wee Swee Teow & Co |
4. Facts
- Dr. Segar and Veronica were close friends and business partners.
- They started a jewellery business as equal partners.
- Dr. Segar refinanced his property to loan Veronica $300,000.
- The relationship between the parties deteriorated, leading to disputes.
- Veronica sent emails containing statements about Dr. Segar.
- Dr. Segar sent SMS messages and a letter containing statements about Veronica.
- The jewellery business was terminated, leading to disputes over assets and accounts.
5. Formal Citations
- Segar Ashok v Koh Fonn Lyn Veronica and another suit, Suit Nos 310 and 562 of 2007, [2010] SGHC 168
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Dr. Segar met Veronica at his clinic. | |
| Veronica proposed starting a jewellery business with Dr. Segar. | |
| Veronica approached Dr. Segar for a loan of $200,000. | |
| Dr. Segar disbursed $258,872.13 to Veronica. | |
| Dr. Segar disbursed $258,872.13 to Veronica. | |
| Dr. Segar bought a shophouse at 184 East Coast Road. | |
| Dr. Segar travelled with Veronica and her family to Sydney, Australia. | |
| Veronica allegedly reneged on her intention to help Dr. Segar with renovation payments. | |
| Parties mutually agreed to end their collaboration in the jewellery business. | |
| New Year’s Eve dinner at a mutual friend's home. | |
| Dr. Segar sent an SMS message to ATM and Marlene. | |
| Dr. Segar received an email from Marlene. | |
| Veronica sent an email entitled “THE TRUE COLOURS OF A SINGAPORE DOCTOR”. | |
| Dr. Segar sent an SMS to ATM. | |
| Dr. Segar sent an SMS to Marlene. | |
| Dr. Segar sent an undated handwritten letter to ATM. | |
| Veronica sent two further emails. | |
| Dr. Segar sent SMS to ATM and Marlene. | |
| Veronica sent email 'THE TRUE COLOURS OF A SINGAPORE DOCTOR'. | |
| Veronica sent two further emails. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Defamation
- Outcome: The court found that the emails were defamatory, but reduced the damages due to mitigating factors and the plaintiff's provocative behavior.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Meaning of defamatory words
- Justification
- Mitigation of damages
- Malice
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 1 SLR(R) 52
- Partnership Dispute
- Outcome: The court ordered a taking of accounts to determine the financial positions of the partners upon dissolution.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Taking of accounts
- Valuation of assets
- Financial contributions of partners
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Injunction
- Account of Profits
- Declaration
9. Cause of Actions
- Libel
- Slander
- Breach of Partnership Agreement
- Account
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
- Retail
- Jewellery
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review Publishing Co Ltd and Another v Lee Hsien Loong and Another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR(R) 52 | Singapore | Cited for the principles to be applied by a court to determine the meanings to which impugned words are capable of. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Goh Chok Tong | N/A | Yes | [1984-1985] SLR 516 | N/A | 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. |
| Aaron Anne Joseph v Cheong Yip Seng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR (R) 258 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a defendant pleading justification in a defamation action must inform the plaintiff and the court precisely what meaning or meanings he seeks to justify. |
| Berkoff v Burchill and Another | N/A | No | [1997] EMLR 139 | N/A | Cited for the observation that the line between mockery and defamation may sometimes be difficult to draw. |
| Broom v Cassell & Co | N/A | Yes | [1972] AC 1027 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the bad conduct of the plaintiff himself may enter into the matter, where he has provoked the libel, or where perhaps he has libelled the defendant in reply. |
| AJA Peter v OG Nio & Ors | N/A | Yes | [1980] 1 MLJ 226 | N/A | Cited to illustrate the application of the proposition that the plaintiff’s behaviour is a reason for awarding lower damages. |
| Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP | High Court | No | [2000] SGHC 111 | Singapore | Discussed in relation to the assessment of damages in defamation cases. |
| Maidstone Pte Ltd v Takenaka Corp | N/A | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR (R) 752 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a defendant is not reckless, for the purposes of proving malice, if he did so believing it was true, even if he was careless, impulsive or irrational in coming to that belief. |
| Au Mun Chew (practising as Au & Associates) v Lim Ban Lee | N/A | No | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 220 | N/A | Cited as an example of damages awarded to a plaintiff who is not a community or public figure. |
| Yeap Beng San Louis v Choo Pit Hong Peter | N/A | No | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 397 | N/A | Cited as an example of damages awarded to a plaintiff who is not a community or public figure. |
| Chen Cheng and another v Central Christian Church and other appeals | N/A | No | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 236 | N/A | Cited as an example of the lower end of the range of awards in defamation cases. |
| TJ System (S) Pte Ltd and Others v Ngow Kheong Shen (No 2) | High Court | No | [2003] SGHC 217 | Singapore | Cited as an example of the lower end of the range of awards in defamation cases. |
| Yeo Nai Meng v Ei-Nets Ltd and Another | High Court | No | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 73 | Singapore | Discussed in relation to the assessment of damages in defamation cases. |
| Yeo Nai Meng v Ei-Nets Ltd and Another | Court of Appeal | No | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 153 | Singapore | Discussed in relation to the assessment of damages in defamation cases. |
| Chiam See Tong v Ling How Doong | N/A | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 648 | N/A | Cited for the principle that where there is common knowledge that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is acrimonious, a reasonable reader would be more likely to be sceptical about what was stated in the offending publication. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Defamation Act (Cap 75, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Defamation
- Libel
- Slander
- Partnership
- Taking of accounts
- Justification
- Mitigation of damages
- Con artist
- Jewellery business
- Loan
- Consultancy fees
- Sapphires
- Gemstones
15.2 Keywords
- defamation
- libel
- slander
- partnership dispute
- jewellery business
- Singapore
- High Court
- taking of accounts
16. Subjects
- Defamation
- Partnership
- Accounting
- Civil Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Defamation Law
- Libel
- Slander
- Partnership Law
- Civil Procedure