ATU v ATY: Defamation Claim for Alleged Child Sexual Abuse at International School

In a defamation action, ATU, ATV, ATW, and ATX sued ATY in the High Court of Singapore for allegations of child sexual abuse at ATU's international school in Jakarta. Judgment in default of appearance was entered against ATY. The court, presided over by Lee Seiu Kin J, assessed damages, awarding S$30,000 to ATU, S$50,000 in general damages and S$20,000 in aggravated damages to ATV and ATW, and S$40,000 in general damages and S$20,000 in aggravated damages to ATX. The court dismissed the claims for special damages.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiffs; damages awarded.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Defamation action by ATU and others against ATY for allegations of child sexual abuse at an international school. The court assessed damages after default judgment.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
ATUPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
ATVPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
ATWPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
ATXPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
ATYDefendantIndividualJudgment in Default of AppearanceLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tham LijingTan Rajah & Cheah
Khwaja Imran HamidTan Rajah & Cheah
Lau YudonTan Rajah & Cheah

4. Facts

  1. Defendant made allegations of sexual abuse against staff at an international school.
  2. Defendant claimed her son was raped more than 20 times.
  3. Defendant sent emails and WhatsApp messages to parents alleging sexual abuse.
  4. Defendant filed a police report alleging sexual abuse.
  5. Defendant accused the school of covering up the abuse.
  6. Medical examination of the defendant's son found no evidence of sexual assault.
  7. The defendant initially stated that her son had not been sexually assaulted.

5. Formal Citations

  1. ATU and others v ATY, Suit No 779 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 184

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parents of C complained that their son was assaulted.
C’s parents lodged a police report.
Police arrested three cleaners employed by a cleaning company engaged by ATU.
C’s mother called for a press conference alleging C had been sexually assaulted.
Defendant claimed at a parents’ meeting that B was the victim of an attempted assault.
ATU engaged an expert to interview B.
Defendant and her husband met with representatives of ATU and the Spanish embassy, repeating allegations.
B’s father wrote an email stating B confirmed he was physically assaulted but no sexual assault happened.
Defendant sent a text message to an ATU parent saying everything was okay after B's physical examination.
Defendant sent an email to three ATU parents alleging B was raped more than 20 times.
Defendant sent an email to the parents of six ATU students alleging her son and their children were victims of sexual assault.
Defendant sent a WhatsApp message alleging the third and fourth plaintiffs had brutally violated children.
Defendant filed a police report alleging the third and fourth plaintiffs participated in the sexual abuse of B.
Plaintiffs commenced the present action.
Defendant was reported in a Jakarta Post article accusing ATU of covering up systematic sexual abuse.
Plaintiffs obtained a judgment in default of appearance.
Defendant's allegations were reproduced in an article by The Independent.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court found the defendant liable for defamation and awarded damages to the plaintiffs.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • False light
      • Injury to reputation
      • Publication of defamatory statements
  2. Damages Assessment
    • Outcome: The court assessed general and aggravated damages, but rejected the claim for special damages.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • General damages
      • Aggravated damages
      • Special damages

8. Remedies Sought

  1. General Damages
  2. Aggravated Damages
  3. Special Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Education

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik VictorCourt of AppealYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 86SingaporeCited for the functions of general damages in a defamation suit: consolation, reparation, and vindication.
Rook v FairrieNot AvailableYes[1941] 1 KB 507England and WalesCited to highlight the distinction between general and special damages in defamation.
The Gleaner Co Ltd and another v AbrahamsNot AvailableYes[2004] 1 AC 628Not AvailableCited for the vindicatory purpose of an award of damages in defamation.
McCarey v Associated Newspapers LtdNot AvailableYes[1965] 2 QB 86England and WalesCited regarding the element of injury to feelings in determining damages.
Rubber Improvement Ltd and another v Daily Telegraph Ltd and anotherNot AvailableYes[1964] AC 234England and WalesCited to support the principle that a company cannot be injured in its feelings.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2010] 4 SLR 357SingaporeCited for the relevance of the intended deterrent effect of the award.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suitNot AvailableYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 642SingaporeCited for the need to pay sufficient regard to past awards in comparable cases.
Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) LtdCourt of AppealYes[1994] 1 QB 670England and WalesCited by the plaintiffs as a comparable case, but the court ultimately found greater guidance in Singaporean awards.
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua BenjaminNot AvailableYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 46SingaporeCited regarding the liability of the original publisher for republication by others.
McManus and others v BeckhamCourt of AppealYes[2002] 1 WLR 2982England and WalesCited regarding the foreseeability of republication by the press.
Slipper v British Broadcasting CorporationNot AvailableYes[1991] 1 QB 283England and WalesCited for the rationale that defamatory statements percolate through underground channels.
A Balakrishnan and others v Nirumalan K Pillay and othersNot AvailableYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 462SingaporeCited as a comparable case for damages awarded in defamation.
Ei-Nets Ltd and another v Yeo Nai MengNot AvailableYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 153SingaporeCited as a comparable case for damages awarded in defamation.
TJ System (S) Pte Ltd and others v Ngow Kheong Shen (No 2)High CourtYes[2003] SGHC 217SingaporeCited as a comparable case for damages awarded in defamation.
Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David and othersNot AvailableYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 608SingaporeCited as a comparable case for damages awarded in defamation.
Koh Sin Chong Freddie v Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others and another appealNot AvailableYes[2013] 4 SLR 629SingaporeCited as a comparable case for damages awarded in defamation.
Golden Season Pte Ltd and others v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd and anotherNot AvailableYes[2015] 2 SLR 751SingaporeCited as a comparable case for damages awarded in defamation.
Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew and another and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 576SingaporeCited to caution against relying on English court awards due to the jury system.
Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon JuanNot AvailableYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 573SingaporeCited as an example of awards to public leaders in Singapore.
Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appealNot AvailableYes[2012] 1 SLR 506SingaporeCited for the ways malice may be proven.
Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 110SingaporeCited to note that the ability of a corporate plaintiff to recover aggravated damages for defamation has not been authoritatively settled.
Messenger Newspapers Group Ltd (plaintiffs) v National Graphical Association (1982) (defendants)Not AvailableYes[1984] 1 All ER 293England and WalesCited for the holding that a company could be awarded aggravated damages, but the court notes that this decision has not been followed in a number of first instance cases.
Collins Stewart Ltd v The Financial Times LtdNot AvailableYes[2006] EMLR 5England and WalesCited for the holding that aggravated damages are in principle not available to a corporate claimant.
(1) Oriental Daily Publisher Ltd; (2) MA Ching Kwan v (1) Ming Pao Holdings Ltd; (2) Ming Pao Newspaper Ltd; and (3) Cheung Kin BorCourt of Final AppealYes[2013] EMLR 7Hong KongCited for the holding that a company was not entitled to claim aggravated damages.
Eaton Mansions (Westminster) Ltd v Stinger Compania de Inversion SACourt of AppealYes[2014] H.L.R. 4England and WalesCited for the holding that aggravated damages are not recoverable by a limited company.
Ratcliffe v EvansNot AvailableYes[1892] 2 QB 524England and WalesCited to explain the term 'special damage'.
Lonrho plc and others v Fayed and others (No 5)Not AvailableYes[1993] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesCited to illustrate the level of particularity required for pleading special damages.
McGregor on DamagesNot AvailableYes[2009]Not AvailableCited to illustrate the level of particularity required for pleading special damages.
Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto SiaCourt of AppealYes[2014] 1 SLR 639SingaporeCited to clarify that the scope of special damage in defamation suits had to be loss referable to the damage to reputation.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Oaths and Declarations ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defamation
  • Sexual abuse
  • International school
  • General damages
  • Aggravated damages
  • Special damages
  • Reputation
  • Malice
  • Publication
  • Damages assessment

15.2 Keywords

  • defamation
  • sexual abuse
  • international school
  • damages
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Defamation95
Child Abuse Allegations80
Assessment of Damages60
Evidence Law40
Civil Procedure30

16. Subjects

  • Defamation
  • Tort
  • Civil Litigation