Ng Koo Kay Benedict v Zim Integrated: Defamation Claim over Press Release

Ng Koo Kay Benedict and Rajathurai Suppiah sued Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on February 9, 2010, for defamation arising from a press release published on the internet. The plaintiffs claimed the press release implied they bribed a former Zim executive. The court found the statement defamatory, holding that it conveyed reasonable suspicion of bribery, and awarded damages to the plaintiffs. The court also awarded costs to the plaintiffs on the High Court scale.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiffs

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Defamation suit by Ng Koo Kay Benedict and Rajathurai Suppiah against Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd over a press release. The court found the statement defamatory and awarded damages.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Zim Integrated Shipping Services LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment Against DefendantLost
Ng Koo Kay BenedictPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Rajathurai SuppiahPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
See Tow Soo LingColin Ng & Partners LLP
Peter Cuthbert LowColin Ng & Partners LLP
Han LilinColin Ng & Partners LLP
Lee Hwee Khiam AnthonyBih Li & Lee
Audrey ThngBih Li & Lee
Marina ChuaBih Li & Lee

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs sued Defendant for defamation over a press release published on the internet.
  2. The press release alleged that the plaintiffs made secret payments to induce Captain Dafni to breach his duties.
  3. The press release was published on several websites and in an email newsletter.
  4. The plaintiffs claimed the statement implied they bribed Captain Dafni.
  5. The defendant argued the defense of justification applied.
  6. The court found the statement conveyed a reasonable suspicion of bribery.
  7. The court found the statement was published to a third party.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ng Koo Kay Benedict and another v Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd, Suit No 144 of 2008, [2010] SGHC 47
  2. Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd v Dafni Igal, Suit 755 of 2007, [2010] SGHC 8

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd commenced Suit 755 against Captain Dafni and the plaintiffs.
Defendant sent an email to HKSG Group Media Ltd enclosing a press release to be published.
Press Release published on http://www.shippingonline.cn and http://www.thaishipper.com
Press Release published on http://www.shippingazette.com and http://www.asianshipper.com
Press Release published on the Asian Shipper e-News.
Plaintiffs’ solicitors wrote to HKSG demanding that the Statement be withdrawn and an apology be posted on its websites.
Plaintiffs’ solicitors wrote to the defendant’s solicitors, demanding that the defendant furnish a copy of the statement.
Defendant’s solicitors responded denying liability.
Plaintiffs commenced this suit.
Judgment reserved.
Supplemental Judgment

7. Legal Issues

  1. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court found the statement defamatory, holding that it conveyed reasonable suspicion of bribery.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Publication to a third party
      • Defamatory meaning of statement
      • Justification
  2. Admissibility of Computer Output
    • Outcome: The court admitted the List of Recipients as evidence under s 35(1)(c) of the Evidence Act.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd v Dafni IgalHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 8SingaporeDetailed facts and holdings in Suit 755 can be found in this judgment.
Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien LoongCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 52SingaporeCited for the test for determining the natural and ordinary meaning of offending words in a defamatory action.
Rubber Improvement Ltd v Daily Telegraph LtdHouse of LordsYes[1964] AC 234United KingdomCited for the repetition rule in defamation.
Shah v Standard Chartered BankCourt of AppealYes[1999] QB 241United KingdomCited for the repetition rule in defamation.
Chase v News Group NewspapersCourt of AppealYes[2003] EMLR 218United KingdomOutlines the three possible levels of involvement that could arise in defamation cases.
Curistan v Times Newspapers LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 WLR 126United KingdomThe court does not necessarily have to pigeonhole the offending material within one of the three Chase levels.
Stern v PiperQueen's BenchYes[1996] 3 QB 123United KingdomCited with respect to a statement concerning the commencement of a writ.
Cadam v Beaverbrook Newspapers LtdQueen's BenchYes[1959] 1 QB 413United KingdomCited with respect to a statement concerning the commencement of a writ.
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua BenjaminCourt of AppealYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 971SingaporeThe law does not confine the ordinary and natural meaning of the Statement to its literal meaning and allows for inferences or implications to be drawn.
Sim v StretchHouse of LordsYes(1936) 52 TLR 669United KingdomA statement is considered to be defamatory if it would “tend to lower the [plaintiffs] in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally”
Aaron Anne Joseph and Ors v Cheong Yip Seng and OrsCourt of AppealYes[1996] 1 SLR(R) 258SingaporeA statement is considered to be defamatory if it would “tend to lower the [plaintiffs] in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally”
Dow Jones and Company Inc v GutnickHigh Court of AustraliaYes210 CLR 575AustraliaFor materials that are made available on the Internet, publication takes place when the material is downloaded and accessed by the end user
Godfrey v Demon Internet LtdQueen's BenchYes[2001] QB 201United KingdomFor materials that are made available on the Internet, publication takes place when the material is downloaded and accessed by the end user
Al Amoudi v BisardCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 WLR 113United KingdomThe law does not recognise that there is a rebuttable presumption of law that substantial publication takes place within a jurisdiction simply because the material is placed on an Internet website that is generally accessible
John Roger Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (a firm)Court of AppealYes[2005] EWCA Civ 288England and WalesThe plaintiffs highlighted that an inference ought to be drawn that publication had taken place through the Websites
Gregg v O’GaraHigh CourtYes[2008] EWHC 658England and WalesThe plaintiffs highlighted that an inference ought to be drawn that publication had taken place through the Websites
Lim Mong Hong v PPHigh CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 88SingaporeNothing in s 35 of the EA states or suggests that the production of the certificate is a mandatory condition
R v ShepherdHouse of LordsYes[1993] AC 380United KingdomEven if so, it is clear that the witness called to verify the reliability and accuracy of the computer will have to be someone fairly familiar with its operations.
R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex parte OsmanCourt of AppealYes[1990] 1 WLR 277United KingdomThe plaintiffs suggested that a presumption of regularity applied to the List of Recipients
Jameel v Dow Jones & CoCourt of AppealYes[2005] QB 946United KingdomThe fact that persons in the plaintiff’s camp in Jameel had accessed the defamatory material knowing what they would find on it appeared to go towards the issue of damages rather than publication
Masa King v Telegraph Group LtdCourt of AppealYes[2004] EMLR 23United KingdomThe defendant cannot rely on facts arising after the publication to establish the existence of reasonable grounds, though it can rely on facts subsisting at the time of publication, even if he was unaware of them at that time
Sutcliffe v Pressdram LtdCourt of AppealYes[1991] 1 QB 153United KingdomAggravated damages may be awarded by the court, taking the conduct of the defendant and his state of mind into account
Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JPHigh CourtYes[2000] SGHC 111SingaporeCounsel for the plaintiffs referred to Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP [2000] SGHC 111 where the plaintiff was awarded costs on the High Court scale even though the damages awarded arising out of defamatory remarks made by the defendant there against him were $150,000.
Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik VictorCourt of AppealYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 86SingaporeThe trial judge’s award of costs on the High Court scale was affirmed by the Court of Appeal
Premier Security Co-Operative Ltd and others v Basil Anthony HermanHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 214SingaporeCounsel for the plaintiffs also referred to the judgment of this court in Premier Security Co-Operative Ltd and others v Basil Anthony Herman [2009] SGHC 214 (“Premier”) where costs on the High Court scale were allowed even though the damages awarded to the three plaintiffs in their defamation action totalled $150,000.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Defamation Act (Cap 75, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defamation
  • Press Release
  • Publication
  • Justification
  • Bribery
  • Reasonable Suspicion
  • Shipping Industry
  • Asian Shipper e-News

15.2 Keywords

  • defamation
  • shipping
  • press release
  • bribery
  • Singapore
  • internet publication

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Defamation95
Inducement of Breach of Contract50
Fiduciary Duties40
Contract Law30
Company Law25

16. Subjects

  • Defamation
  • Shipping Law
  • Civil Litigation