Chan Cheng Wah Bernard v Koh Sin Chong Freddie: Defamation Claim over Club Expenditure

Chan Cheng Wah Bernard, Tan Hock Lay Robin, Chong Tjee Teng Nicholas and Ho Bok Kee, members of the 2007/2008 management committee of the Singapore Swimming Club, sued Koh Sin Chong Freddie, the President of the 2008/2009 management committee, for defamation. The Court of Appeal of Singapore heard the appeal against the High Court's decision, with Chao Hick Tin JA delivering the judgment on 2011-11-21. The legal issue was whether statements made by the Defendant were defamatory and, if so, whether the defense of justification or qualified privilege applied. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the statements were defamatory, the defense of justification did not apply, and the defense of qualified privilege was defeated by malice. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiffs, with damages to be assessed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Defamation suit by club members against the president over alleged misrepresentations regarding club expenditures. Appeal allowed, judgment for plaintiffs.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Koh Sin Chong FreddieRespondent, DefendantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Chan Cheng Wah BernardAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal allowedWon
Tan Hock Lay RobinAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal allowedWon
Chong Tjee Teng NicholasAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal allowedWon
Ho Bok KeeAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal allowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Hri Kumar NairDrew & Napier LLC
Melissa LiewDrew & Napier LLC
Tan Chee MengWongPartnership LLP
Chang Man PhingWongPartnership LLP
Alfred LimWongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs were members of the 2007/2008 management committee of the Singapore Swimming Club.
  2. Defendant was the President of the 2008/2009 management committee of the Club.
  3. Alleged defamatory statements were published in the minutes of meetings held on 2008-10-29 and 2008-11-26.
  4. The statements concerned the Previous MC's representations regarding expenditure on a new water system.
  5. The High Court initially dismissed the claim, finding the statements defamatory but justified.
  6. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the statements defamatory and the defense of justification inapplicable.
  7. The Court of Appeal also found that the defense of qualified privilege was defeated by malice.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appeal, Civil Appeal Nos 210 and 213 of 2010, [2011] SGCA 63
  2. Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie, , [2010] SGHC 324

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Club formed
Competition Pool closed due to contamination; special meeting of Previous MC held
Previous MC meeting
Previous MC meeting; approval to execute contract with TWC
Expenditure on TWC Package put up for ratification at the 2008 AGM
Defendant elected as President of the Current MC at the AGM
Club's Thank You and Welcome Dinner
Audit Committee submitted its Audit Report to the Current MC
Former GM dismissed
MC meeting
MC meeting
Chairman sent an email to the financial controller of the Club
Treasurer sent emails to the Chairman and the financial controller
Chairman sent an email to the Treasurer and the financial controller
Defendant sent an email to all three members of the Audit Committee
MC meeting
29 October 2008 Meeting; First Statement made
Meeting held between the Audit Committee, the Current MC and the financial controller
Chairman sent an email stating that their conclusion that it was an emergency expenditure remained unchanged
Defendant emailed the Chairman
Audit Committee decided there was no need to amend its Audit Report
26 November 2008 Meeting; Second Statement made
Defendant re-elected as President for a further one year term at the AGM
Current MC sent the draft Addendum from the Current MC to the Audit Committee
Audit Committee responded that the Addendum raised many issues that required further investigation
Resolution declared void in a separate action, OS 826/2009, due to the lack of notice
EOGM
Cross-examination of the Defendant
Cross-examination of the Defendant
Judge dismissed the claim with costs
Plaintiffs appealed against the Judge’s finding on justification and her order on costs
Defendant appealed against the Judge’s finding that the words complained of were defamatory
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Defamation
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the statements were defamatory, the defense of justification did not apply, and the defense of qualified privilege was defeated by malice.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Misrepresentation
      • Justification
      • Qualified privilege
      • Malice
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] SGHC 324

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Recreation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong FreddieHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 324SingaporeAppeal from the decision of the High Court in a defamation suit.
Lewis v The Daily Telegraph LtdN/AYes[1964] AC 234England and WalesCited for the general principles applicable to the construction of words based on their natural and ordinary meanings in defamation cases.
The Capital and Counties Bank Limited v George Henry & SonsN/AYes(1881-1882) LR 7 App Cas 741England and WalesCited for the general principles applicable to the construction of words based on their natural and ordinary meanings in defamation cases.
Skuse v Granada Television LimitedN/AYes[1996] EMLR 278England and WalesCited for the general principles applicable to the construction of words based on their natural and ordinary meanings in defamation cases.
Chalmers v Payne and anotherN/AYes(1835) 2 Cr M & R 156England and WalesCited for the general principles applicable to the construction of words based on their natural and ordinary meanings in defamation cases.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and anotherN/AYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004SingaporeCited for the general principles applicable to the construction of words based on their natural and ordinary meanings in defamation cases.
Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David and othersN/AYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 608SingaporeCited for the general principles applicable to the construction of words based on their natural and ordinary meanings in defamation cases.
Microsoft Corp and others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and another and other appealsN/AYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 465SingaporeCited for the general principles applicable to the construction of words based on their natural and ordinary meanings in defamation cases.
Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appealN/AYes[2010] 1 SLR 52SingaporeCited for the general principles applicable to the construction of words based on their natural and ordinary meanings in defamation cases.
Rees v Law Society GazetteN/AYes(2003) (Unreported)England and WalesCited for the principle that the class of reader is relevant in determining the scope of possible meanings the publication may bear.
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin and another actionN/AYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 971SingaporeCited in support of the proposition that there must be evidence showing widespread dissemination of the relevant information in order for that information to be deemed as forming part of the ordinary reasonable person’s background knowledge.
Edwards v BellN/AYes(1824) 1 Bing 403England and WalesCited for the principle that it is sufficient if the substance of the libellous statement be justified; it is unnecessary to repeat every word which might have been the subject of the original comment.
Aaron Anne Joseph and others v Cheong Yip Seng and othersN/AYes[1996] 1 SLR(R) 258SingaporeCited for the principle that the defendant has only to prove the “sting” of the charge, and some leeway for exaggeration and error is given.
Dawkins v AntrobusN/AYes(1881) LR 17 Ch D 615England and WalesCited for the principle that when a decision of the management committee of a club is in dispute, the court should not embark upon a minute scrutiny of the correctness of the decision, but should only consider whether the decision was intra vires and bona fide.
Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty LtdN/AYes(2004) 204 ALR 193AustraliaCited for the court's approach in deciding whether the First and Second Statements were made on an occasion of qualified privilege.
Seaga v HarperPrivy CouncilYes[2009] 1 AC 1JamaicaCited for the circumstances under which qualified privilege could arise.
Horrocks v LoweN/AYes[1975] AC 135England and WalesCited for the law on malice.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appealN/AYes[2010] 4 SLR 331SingaporeCited for the clarification that malice may be proven in two ways.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defamation
  • Misrepresentation
  • Justification
  • Qualified privilege
  • Malice
  • Management committee
  • Singapore Swimming Club
  • Expenditure
  • Ratification
  • Annual General Meeting

15.2 Keywords

  • defamation
  • club
  • expenditure
  • misrepresentation
  • Singapore
  • appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Defamation95
Misrepresentation70
Club Law40
Costs30

16. Subjects

  • Defamation
  • Club Governance
  • Civil Litigation