Dorsey v World Sport Group: Pre-Action Interrogatories, Defamation & Breach of Confidence

In Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed the exercise of judicial discretion in ordering pre-action interrogatories. The case involved potential claims for defamation and breach of confidence arising from blog posts by Dorsey alleging improprieties by a former head of an international sports body. World Sport Group sought pre-action interrogatories to ascertain the sources of Dorsey's information. The Court of Appeal allowed Dorsey's appeal, reversing the High Court's decision to order Dorsey to answer the interrogatories, finding that the interrogatories were not necessary in the circumstances.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Written Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal case concerning pre-action interrogatories in a potential defamation and breach of confidence claim. Appeal allowed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Dorsey James MichaelAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
World Sport Group Pte LtdRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealNo
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
N SreenivasanStraits Law Practice LLC
Sujatha SelvakumarStraits Law Practice LLC
George HwangGeorge Hwang LLC
Deborah BarkerKhattarWong LLP
Ushan PremaratneKhattarWong LLP

4. Facts

  1. Dorsey, a Senior Fellow at NTU and journalist, maintained a blog titled ‘The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer’.
  2. WSG is an international sports marketing, media and event management company.
  3. WSG had commercial links with the AFC since 1993.
  4. AFC and World Sport Football entered into a Master Commercial Rights Agreement in 2009, later novated to WSG.
  5. Allegations of bribery and corruption rocked the AFC in July 2011.
  6. PWC finalized a report in July 2012 on transactions during Bin Hammam’s tenure as AFC president.
  7. Dorsey covered the issue in various blog posts, referencing the PWC Report and citing sources close to the AFC.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 167 of 2012, [2014] SGCA 4

6. Timeline

DateEvent
AFC and World Sport Football entered into a Master Commercial Rights Agreement
Master Commercial Rights Agreement was novated to WSG
Allegations of bribery and corruption rocked the AFC
PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Sdn Bhd finalised a report on troubling matters of AFC
Dorsey published blog post titled “Bin Hammam Audit Opens Pandora’s Box – Analysis”
Dorsey published blog post titled “Qatar and UAE Hire Fired AFC Bin Hammam Associates – Analysis”
Dorsey published blog post titled “FIFA’s suspension of Bin Hammam buys time/ Column by James M Dorsey”
Wide World of Sports, News.com.au, The Republic and Al Jazeera reported that the subject commercial rights agreement between AFC and WSG were no bid contracts and were “considerably undervalued”
Dorsey published blog post titled “FIFA investigates: World Cup host Qatar in the hot seat”
WSG sought leave to serve on Dorsey pre-action interrogatories
Application to strike out the Notice of Appeal was dismissed by this Court
Judgment reserved
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Pre-Action Interrogatories
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the pre-action interrogatories were not necessary in the circumstances and allowed the appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Judicial discretion in ordering pre-action interrogatories
      • Relevance and necessity of pre-action interrogatories
      • Balancing of interests in ordering pre-action interrogatories
  2. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court considered whether the sources were prima facie liable for defamation but did not make a definitive ruling on the defamation claim itself.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Publication of defamatory statements
      • Defence of fair comment
      • Identification of sources of defamatory information
  3. Breach of Confidence
    • Outcome: The court considered whether the sources were prima facie in breach of an obligation of confidentiality but did not make a definitive ruling on the breach of confidence claim itself.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Disclosure of confidential information
      • Duty of confidentiality
      • Identification of sources of confidential information

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Pre-action interrogatories to ascertain sources of information
  2. Pre-action discovery of the PWC Report and the MRA

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation
  • Breach of Confidence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Sports
  • Media

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Norwich Pharmacal Co and Others v Customs and Excise CommissionersHouse of LordsYes[1974] AC 133England and WalesCited as the basis for ordering discovery or interrogatories against non-parties.
Kuah Kok Kim v Ernst & Young (a firm)Court of AppealYes[1996] 3 SLR(R) 485SingaporeCited for the purpose of pre-action discovery is for a plaintiff who does not yet know whether he has a viable claim against the defendant.
Navigator Investment Services Ltd v Acclaim Insurance Brokers Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 25SingaporeCited for the grant of pre-action discovery and/or pre-action interrogatories might assist the applicant to ascertain whether it had a viable claim against the respondent.
Foo Ko Hing v Foo Chee HengHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 664SingaporeCited as an instance where pre-action interrogatories were successfully invoked.
Tan Seow Cheng v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp LtdHigh CourtYes[2003] SGHC 30SingaporeCited for the observation that the plaintiff should have first obtained pre-action interrogatories from one Mr Cheong (a non-party).
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and other applicationsHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 39SingaporeCited for the caution that pre-action discovery is only for an applicant who is unable to plead a case as he does not yet know whether he has a viable claim against the opponents.
Asta Rickmers Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Cie KG v Hub Marine Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 283SingaporeCited for the finding that on the established facts pre-action discovery would necessarily save costs.
Ng Giok Oh and others v Sajjad Akhtar and othersHigh CourtYes[2003] 1 SLR(R) 375SingaporeCited for the caution that pre-action discovery was not an instrument for private detectives snooping for action.
British Steel Corporation v Granada Television LtdHouse of LordsYes[1981] AC 1096England and WalesCited for the principle that in compelling disclosure of sources it is only exceptionally that the aggrieved person would have, and could demonstrate, a real interest in suing the source.
United Company Rusal Plc v HSBC Bank PlcHigh Court of JusticeYes[2011] EWHC 404 (QB)England and WalesCited for the standard of proof which an applicant must attain before a Norwich Pharmacal order may be granted is that he has at least an arguable case.
P v TN/AYes[1997] 1 WLR 1309N/ACited as an exception to the requirement of making out a seriously arguable case that a tort had been committed for obtaining a Norwich Pharmacal order.
President of the State of Equatorial Guinea v RBS InternationalPrivy CouncilYes[2006] UKPC 7United KingdomCited for the requirement that claimants have to show that the disclosure sought is necessary to enable him to take action, or at least that it is just and convenient in the interests of justice to make the order sought.
Alan Kneale v Barclays Bank Plc (trading as Barclaycard)High Court of JusticeYes[2010] EWHC 1900 (Comm)England and WalesCited for the suggestion that the court must be satisfied on two questions: whether there is a good arguable case on the material before it at the time of application, and whether the court considers that there would be a good arguable case if the disclosure was provided.
John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v CojuangcoHigh Court of AustraliaYes[1988] 165 CLR 346AustraliaCited to fortify its stance that it should be permitted to pursue their grievances against the sources even after suing Dorsey.
Attorney General v Observer Ltd and OthersHouse of LordsYes[1990] 1 AC 109England and WalesCited for the principle that the principle of confidentiality only applies to information to the extent that it is confidential.
Long Beach Limited, Denis Christel Sassou Nguesso v Global Witness LimitedHigh Court of JusticeYes[2007] EWHC 1980 (QB)England and WalesCited for the principle that the courts will not enforce an obligation of confidentiality in relation to material that is alleged to show serious misconduct.
Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 354SingaporeAffirmed that under the existing appeal scheme set out in the SCJA an application for leave to serve pre-action interrogatories was not an “interlocutory application” for the purposes of the SCJA.
The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Systems Ltd (formerly Viagogo Ltd)N/AYes[2013] FSR 23N/ACited for the jurisdiction afforded by Norwich Pharmacal orders is a flexible one and involves a careful and fair weighing of all relevant factors.
R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1)High Court of JusticeYes[2008] EWHC 2048 (Admin); [2009] 1 WLR 2579England and WalesCited for the person with the information need not have caused the wrongdoing, or even have had knowledge of the wrongdoing.
Clift v ClarkeHigh Court of JusticeYes[2011] EWHC 1164 (QB)England and WalesCited for the strength of the possible cause of action contemplated by the applicant.
Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN LtdN/AYes[2002] 1 WLR 2033N/ACited for whether it is a necessary and proportionate response in all the circumstances.
Bols Distilleries BV v Superior Yacht Services LtdPrivy CouncilYes[2007] 1 WLR 12United KingdomCited for the test at para [28] as requiring the court to be as satisfied as it can be, having regard to the limitations which an interlocutory process imposes, that factors exist which allow the court to take jurisdiction, or that the applicant has a much better argument than the defendant.
Anglo Irish Bank Corporation PLC v West LB AGHigh Court of JusticeYes[2009] EWHC 207 (Comm)England and WalesCited for the threshold seems to be one where disclosure will not be granted where the court would deem a case to be “over-speculative”.
XL London Market Ltd v Zenith Syndicate Management LtdHigh Court of JusticeYes[2004] EWHC 1182 (Comm)England and WalesCited for disclosure was granted even though claimants accepted they did not know what had gone wrong, could not make any specific allegations of negligence and did not want to sue come what may.
World Sport Group Pte Ltd v Dorsey James MichaelHigh CourtYes[2013] 3 SLR 180SingaporeThe decision from which this appeal arose is reported at [2013] 3 SLR 180.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 26A r 1Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 332, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 24 r 6Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 34(1)(a)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 36Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Pre-action interrogatories
  • Defamation
  • Breach of confidence
  • Master Commercial Rights Agreement
  • Asian Football Confederation
  • PricewaterhouseCoopers Report
  • Sources
  • Blog posts
  • Judicial discretion
  • Norwich Pharmacal order

15.2 Keywords

  • Pre-action interrogatories
  • Defamation
  • Breach of confidence
  • Sports law
  • Media law
  • Singapore
  • Civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Confidence70
Civil Litigation60
Civil Practice60
Evidence Law40
Costs30
Contract Law20
Cannabis Law10
Arbitration10

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Defamation
  • Breach of Confidence
  • Interrogatories