ANB v ANF: Defamation, O 14 r 12, Meaning of Defamatory Words, Justification Defence

In ANB v ANF, before the High Court of Singapore on 3 November 2010, the plaintiff, ANB, brought a defamation action against the defendant, ANF, concerning an article posted on the defendant's blog. The article discussed the plaintiff's alleged practice of extracting donations from foreign students in exchange for school placement. The court considered whether a preliminary determination of the article's meaning under O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court was appropriate, and ultimately found that the defendant had raised a triable defense of justification, granting the defendant unconditional leave to defend and allowing the appeal against the Assistant Registrar's determination of meaning.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Defendant granted unconditional leave to defend; defendant’s appeal against the Assistant Registrar’s determination on meaning of the Article allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

In ANB v ANF, the High Court addressed preliminary determination of meaning in defamation suits under O 14 r 12, emphasizing that such determination should only occur when there are no triable defenses.

1.7 Decision Date

2 November 2010

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
ANB	Plaintiff	Individual	Unconditional leave to defend granted to defendant	Lost	Tan Gim Hai Adrian, Ong Pei Ching, Joseph Yeo
ANF	Defendant	Individual	Appeal allowed	Won	Michael Palmer, James Lin

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Steven Chong J	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tan Gim Hai Adrian	Drew & Napier LLC
Ong Pei Ching	Drew & Napier LLC
Joseph Yeo	Drew & Napier LLC
Michael Palmer	Harry Elias Partnership LLP
James Lin	Harry Elias Partnership LLP

4. Facts

The plaintiff, ANB, was the Head of Department (English) at [B] Secondary School and in charge of foreign student applications.
The defendant, ANF, posted an article on her blog accusing the plaintiff of extracting donations from foreign students for school placement.
The article alleged that the plaintiff demanded S$3000 cash for each student in donation to guarantee placement.
The plaintiff contended the article meant she accepted bribes for personal benefit, while the defendant claimed it meant she solicited donations for the school.
The Assistant Registrar determined the article accused the plaintiff of accepting bribes for her own benefit.
The defendant pleaded a defence of justification, arguing she could justify the meaning that the plaintiff solicited donations for the school.
The Court found that the Article meant and was understood to mean that the plaintiff was sacked as a teacher, because she had demanded $3000 in cash donations for [B]SS from the guardians of foreign students applying for places in [B]SS.

5. Formal Citations

ANB v ANF, Suit No 641 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 470 of 2009), [2010] SGHC 329

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2009-07-23	Plaintiff brought a defamation action against the defendant.
2009-10-02	Plaintiff filed an application under O 14 r 12 for determination of the natural and ordinary meaning of the Article.
2009-11-24	Summons heard by the Assistant Registrar.
2009-12-08	Assistant Registrar delivered his decision.
2009-12-18	Defendant filed a notice of appeal against the Assistant Registrar’s decision.
2010-02-01	Appeal heard by the Judge.
2010-04-07	Court of Appeal delivered its decision in Basil Anthony.
2010-05-25	Counsel for the plaintiff wrote to draw the court’s attention to Basil Anthony.
2010-06-23	Parties appeared before the Judge.
2010-07-14	Judge was informed that the defendant had instructed Mr Michael Palmer.
2010-08-30	Amended defence was filed.
2010-09-20	Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment together with the defendant’s appeal were heard by the Judge.
2010-11-03	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Meaning of Defamatory Words
- Outcome: The court found that the article meant that the plaintiff had demanded $3000 in cash donations for [B]SS from the guardians of foreign students applying for places in [B]SS.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Interpretation of article
  - Inference of corruption
Justification Defence
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant had raised a triable defence of justification.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Truth of defamatory statement
  - Common sting
Use of O 14 r 12 in Defamation Actions
- Outcome: The court held that O 14 r 12 should be used in defamation cases for determination on meaning in tandem with a plaintiff’s application for summary judgment. If the court is satisfied that there are triable defences, it should decline to make a ruling on meaning.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Appropriateness of preliminary determination
  - Triable defences

8. Remedies Sought

Damages for defamation

9. Cause of Actions

Defamation

10. Practice Areas

Litigation

11. Industries

Education

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 3 SLR 110	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court should refrain from giving an opinion on meaning where there are clearly triable defences in defamation suits.
Payna Chettiar v Maimoon bte Ismail	High Court	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR(R) 738	Singapore	Cited as an example where O 14 r 12 was invoked by the defendant to determine questions of law with the view to dismissing the action.
UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 1	Singapore	Cited as an example where O 14 r 12 was invoked by the defendant to determine questions of law with the view to dismissing the action.
Japura Development Pte Ltd v Singapore Telecommunications Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR(R) 1	Singapore	Cited as an example where O 14 r 12 was invoked by the defendant to determine questions of law with the view to dismissing 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 as the first reported case where O 14 r 12 was used in a defamation action to determine the meaning of the offending words.
Home and Overseas Insurance Co Ltd v Mentor Insurance Co (UK)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1990] 1 WLR 153	England	Cited for the principle that Order 14 proceedings should not be allowed to become a means for obtaining an immediate trial of an action.
The Coral	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1	England	Cited for the principle that summary judgment should be denied if the defendant's construction of the bills of lading is not clearly unarguable.
European Asian Bank AG v Punjab & Sind Bank (No.2)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1983] 1 WLR 642	England	Cited for the principle that summary judgment ought to be given in cases where the entire dispute turned on a point of law.
RG Carter Ltd v Clarke	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1990] 1 WLR 578	England	Cited for the principle that if a judge is satisfied that there are no issues of fact between the parties, it would be pointless for him to give leave to defend on the basis that there was a triable issue of law.
Associated Dairies Ltd v Baines and Others	Court of Appeal	Yes	Court of Appeal, 6 July 1995	England	Cited for the principle that the interpretation of a contract will not be suitable for an O 14A determination if the context in which the contract was signed is relevant in its interpretation.
Cullin v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] PIQR P314	England	Cited for the principle that the question of whether there is a duty of care in tort is typically unsuitable for O 14A determination because such a question would usually involve a mixed question of law and fact.
Korso Finance Establishment Anstalt v Wedge & others	English Court of Appeal	Yes	Court of Appeal, 15 February 1994	England	Cited for the principle that an O 14A determination is appropriate even if it would only “finally determine” the cause of action if it is decided in favor of one party.
State Bank of India v Murjani Marketing Group Limited and Others	English Court of Appeal	Yes	English Court of Appeal, 27 March 1991	England	Cited for the principle that the court declined to use O 14A to decide a standalone issue of law because it would not have “finally determined” the dispute or even the issue of residence between the parties.
Neptune (Vehicle Washing Equipment) Ltd v Fitzgerald	English High Court	Yes	[1996] Ch 274	England	Cited for the principle that O 14A could be used to decide a free-standing point of law that will bind the trial judge when the case proceeds to trial.
Morris and Another v. Sanders Universal Products	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1954] 1 WLR 67	England	Cited as cautioning against the bifurcation of the court process into issues of law and fact.
Tilling v Whiteman	House of Lords	Yes	[1980] AC 1	England	Cited as criticizing the practice of using the Rules of Court to obtain a bifurcation of the judicial process.
Brain v Ingledew, Brown, Bennison & Garrett (No.1)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] FSR 341	England	Cited for the principle that O 14A should not usually be used to determine an issue of law that would not finally determine the claim.
Federal Insurance Co v Nakano Singapore (Pte) Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] 2 SLR(R) 982	Singapore	Cited for the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to determine a preliminary issue of law under O 33 r 2 before trying the issues of fact.
San International Pte Ltd v Keppel Engineering Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 447	Singapore	Cited as reiterating a cautious approach to taking preliminary points of law on inadequate agreed facts.
Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR(R) 8	Singapore	Cited as an example where O 14 r 12 resulted directly in summary judgments for the plaintiffs.
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 where O 14 r 12 resulted directly in summary judgments for the plaintiffs.
Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd and another and another suit	High Court	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 177	Singapore	Cited as an example where O 14 r 12 resulted directly in summary judgments for the plaintiffs.
Hytech Builders Pte Ltd v Goh Teng Poh Karen	High Court	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR(R) 236	Singapore	Cited as an example where the court made determination of meaning even though it was clear that the cases would still have to proceed to trial due to triable issues of fact.
Bank of China v Asiaweek Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1991] 1 SLR(R) 230	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, no extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine their meaning or the sense in which they were understood.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew	High Court	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR(R) 791	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, no extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine their meaning or the sense in which they were understood.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another	High Court	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 444	Singapore	Cited for the principle that O 14 r 12 would not be appropriate if the plaintiff is relying on a true innuendo to determine the meaning since evidence would have to be led.
Skuse v Granada Television Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] EMLR 278	England	Cited for the principle that the ordinary reasonable reader is not unduly suspicious or avid for scandal and neither does he select one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available.
Aaron Anne Joseph and others v Cheong Yip Seng and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR(R) 258	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is not necessary to prove the truth of every word of the libel. If the defendant proves that 'the main charge, or gist, of the libel' is true, he need not justify statements or comments which do not add to the sting of the charge or introduce any matter by itself actionable.
S and K Holdings Ltd v Throgmorton Publications Ltd and another	English High Court	Yes	[1972] 1 WLR 1036	England	Cited for the principle that if the separate allegations in the defamatory had a common sting, then the defendant may succeed on his defence of justification by proving the truth of the sting, notwithstanding his failure to prove each of the specific allegations complained of by the plaintiff.
Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc and Others v Trelford and Others	English High Court	Yes	[1986] QB 1000	England	Cited for the principle that if the separate allegations in the defamatory had a common sting, then the defendant may succeed on his defence of justification by proving the truth of the sting, notwithstanding his failure to prove each of the specific allegations complained of by the plaintiff.
Carlton Communications Plc v News Group Newspapers Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] EMLR 16	England	Cited for the principle that a second allegation cannot properly be introduced for the purposes of justification under the common sting principle unless, taken together, the allegations can be said to advance a wholly general charge.
Weaver v Lloyd	Court of King's Bench	Yes	(1824) 2 B&C 678	England	Cited for the principle that the question is whether the Article would be any less damaging to the plaintiff if the portion concerning the plaintiff’s sacking was deleted from it.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court
O 14 of the Rules of Court
O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court
O 33 r 2 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Defamation
O 14 r 12
Justification
Meaning
Triable defence
Preliminary determination
Donation
Bribe
Sacking
Performance bonus

15.2 Keywords

Defamation
O 14 r 12
Justification
Singapore
High Court
Rules of Court
Meaning of defamatory words

16. Subjects

Defamation
Civil Procedure
Preliminary Legal Issues

17. Areas of Law

Defamation Law
Civil Procedure