Hady Hartanto v Yee Kit Hong: Defamation Claim over SGXNET Announcement
Hady Hartanto sued Yee Kit Hong, Chia, and Ko for defamation concerning statements published on SGXNET regarding four transactions during Hady's directorship at SEH. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, dismissed Hady Hartanto's claim, finding the defendants' statements were justified and protected by qualified privilege. The court held that the defendants had a duty to publish the information under Catalist Rules and that the investing public had a corresponding interest in receiving it.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed on grounds of justification and qualified privilege.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Defamation claim by Hady Hartanto against Yee Kit Hong for publishing defamatory statements on SGXNET. The court dismissed the claim based on justification and qualified privilege.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hady Hartanto | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Suresh Nair Sukumaran, Muralli Rajaram Raja |
| Yee Kit Hong | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Ang Cheng Hock, Loong Tse Chuan, Ramesh Kumar, Michelle Yap, Eunice Chew |
| Chia | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Ang Cheng Hock, Loong Tse Chuan, Ramesh Kumar, Michelle Yap, Eunice Chew |
| Ko | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Ang Cheng Hock, Loong Tse Chuan, Ramesh Kumar, Michelle Yap, Eunice Chew |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Suresh Nair Sukumaran | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| Muralli Rajaram Raja | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| Ang Cheng Hock | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Loong Tse Chuan | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Ramesh Kumar | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Michelle Yap | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Eunice Chew | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- Hady Hartanto was a director of SEH from March 15, 2011, to October 25, 2011.
- Yee Kit Hong, Chia, and Ko were also directors of SEH at the time.
- The case concerns statements published on SGXNET regarding four transactions.
- SFCA was appointed as a special auditor to investigate the transactions.
- The Announcement and Executive Summary contained the disputed words.
- The defendants claimed qualified privilege and justification as defenses.
- The court found the defendants' statements were justified and protected by qualified privilege.
5. Formal Citations
- Hady Hartanto v Yee Kit Hong and others, Suit No 679 of 2011, [2014] SGHC 40
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| SEH incorporated in Singapore | |
| SEH listed on SGX Sesdaq | |
| John Ho and family agree to sell shares to Telemedia | |
| Sale of shares to Telemedia completed; Hady Hartanto appointed as director of SEH | |
| Board meeting held; Shiong Jin introduced as Hady's consultant | |
| Alpha Contracts executed | |
| S$3.2m paid by Scorpio Group to Alpha | |
| Yee stops proposed payments | |
| Board meeting held; Hady informs defendants of Alpha Contracts | |
| Board meeting held; identity of Jung Jin revealed | |
| Audit Committee recommends appointment of SFCA as special auditor | |
| SFCA formally appointed as special auditor of SEH | |
| Trading halt converted to suspension | |
| Defendants receive signed SFCA report | |
| Yee sends email to call for Board meeting | |
| Proposed Board meeting date | |
| Hady states he is unavailable to attend Board meeting | |
| Defendants and Bernard Lim meet with SGX | |
| Board meeting held; Hady given copy of Executive Summary | |
| Announcement broadcast on SGXNET | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Defamation
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants' statements were justified and protected by qualified privilege, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Meaning of defamatory words
- Justification
- Qualified privilege
- Consent or leave and licence
- Qualified Privilege
- Outcome: The court held that the defendants had a duty to publish the information under Catalist Rules and that the investing public had a corresponding interest in receiving it, establishing qualified privilege.
- Category: Substantive
- Justification
- Outcome: The court found that the meanings of the disputed words were justified and substantially true.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for defamation
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Defamation
- Corporate Governance
11. Industries
- Entertainment
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review Publishing Co Ltd and other v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 52 | Singapore | Cited for the test for determining the natural and ordinary meaning of offending words in a defamation action. |
| Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 506 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the meaning of the disputed words must be read within the context of the publication as a whole. |
| Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1998] 193 CLR 519 | Australia | Cited for the principle that there will generally be no disadvantage in permitting reliance on a meaning which is simply a variant of the meaning pleaded. |
| M’Pherson v Daniels | King's Bench | Yes | (1829) 10 B & C 263 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that something that is substantially true cannot be used by the claimant to recover damages. |
| Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto Sia | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] SGCA 61 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that publications are protected based on the principle that statements which are defamatory and untrue may be privileged on grounds of public policy and convenience. |
| Horrocks v Lowe | House of Lords | Yes | [1975] AC 135 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that no sense of duty or desire to protect his own legitimate interests can justify a man in telling deliberate and injurious falsehoods about another. |
| Edwards v Bell | Court of Common Pleas | Yes | (1824) 1 Bing 403 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that as much must be justified as meets the sting of the charge, and if anything be contained in a charge which does not add to the sting of it, that need not be justified. |
| ANB v ANF | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where there are separate allegations in the defamatory material that have a common sting, the defendant can succeed by justifying the truth of the sting, notwithstanding that each specific allegation is not met. |
| Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc v Trelford | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1986] QB 1000 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that where there are separate allegations in the defamatory material that have a common sting, the defendant can succeed by justifying the truth of the sting, notwithstanding that each specific allegation is not met. |
| Stuart Bray v Deutsche Bank AG | High Court | Yes | [2008] EWHC 1263 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the inaccuracy in the announcement would not defeat qualified privilege, but only went to show bad faith. |
| Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another | High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parts which are fairly and reasonably connected to the matters occasioning privilege are given protection as well, even if they are excessive or exaggerated. |
| Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 331 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parts which are fairly and reasonably connected to the matters occasioning privilege are given protection as well, even if they are excessive or exaggerated. |
| Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David and others | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 608 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proportionality was required in ensuring that only the relevant interested parties received the information, and that the publication was not made in a disproportionate manner. |
| Yeap Wai Kong v Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 565 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the underlying objective of SGX’s enforcement role was to ensure that material information was disclosed to the market. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Catalist Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Securities and Futures Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Defamation
- Qualified privilege
- Justification
- SGXNET
- Catalist Rules
- Executive Summary
- Announcement
- Fiduciary duty
- Special auditor
- Material information
- Board approval
- Scorpio Contracts
- Alpha Contracts
- Round-tripping transactions
15.2 Keywords
- defamation
- qualified privilege
- justification
- SGXNET
- corporate governance
- securities law
- directors duties
16. Subjects
- Defamation
- Corporate Governance
- Securities Regulation
17. Areas of Law
- Defamation Law
- Corporate Law
- Securities Law