Ting Choon Meng v Attorney-General: Protection from Harassment Act & False Statements

1. Case Overview

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

4. Counsels

4. Facts

1. Dr. Ting gave an interview to The Online Citizen, which was published on January 15, 2015.
2. The Attorney-General sought an order under Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act regarding statements made in the interview.
3. The Attorney-General alleged that Dr. Ting made false statements of fact about MINDEF.
4. MobileStats commenced an action in the High Court in 2011 alleging that MINDEF’s purchase and use of a particular vehicle constituted an infringement of a patent that it owned.
5. MobileStats subsequently discontinued the action in the midst of the trial, which resulted in the revocation of its patent on the ground of invalidity.
6. MINDEF responded to Dr Ting’s comments with a statement that was posted on its “Cyberpioneer” Facebook page.
7. The Online Citizen published MINDEF’s Facebook statement in full and provided a prominent link to MINDEF’s statement from the article containing Dr Ting’s video interview.

5. Formal Citations

1. Ting Choon Meng v Attorney-General and another appeal, Community Justice and Tribunals Appeals Nos 1 and 2 of 2015, [2015] SGHC 315

6. Timeline

7. Legal Issues

1. Interpretation of 'Person' in Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act
   • Outcome: The court held that the Government is not a 'person' within the meaning of Section 15(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act and cannot avail itself of the remedy under that section.
   • Category: Statutory Interpretation
   • Sub-Issues:
     • Whether the government falls within the definition of 'person' under the Act
     • Whether the Act's purpose includes protecting governmental bodies from false statements
   • Related Cases:
     • [1993] AC 534
     • [1955] AC 667
     • [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582
2. False Statements of Fact
   • Outcome: The court found that one statement of fact made by Dr. Ting was false: that MINDEF had deliberately delayed the court proceedings in Suit 619 as a 'war of attrition' against MobileStats. The court did not find that MINDEF had knowingly infringed the Patent, with the intent to apply subsequently to revoke the Patent upon Dr Ting’s legal challenge.
   • Category: Substantive
   • Sub-Issues:
     • Whether the statements made by Dr. Ting were false
     • Whether the statements pertained to MINDEF
     • Whether the statements were presented as facts
3. Just and Equitable Standard for Granting an Order under Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act
   • Outcome: The court held that it was not just and equitable to grant the order sought by the Attorney-General, even in relation to the single statement of fact that was found to be false.
   • Category: Procedural
   • Sub-Issues:
     • Factors to consider when determining whether it is just and equitable to grant an order
     • The impact of the false statement on the subject
     • The availability of alternative remedies

8. Remedies Sought

1. Order that no person shall publish or continue to publish the statements unless that person publishes a notification to bring attention to the falsehood and the true facts.

9. Cause of Actions

• Application under Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act

10. Practice Areas

• Civil Litigation

11. Industries

• No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

13. Applicable Rules

14. Applicable Statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

• Harassment
• False Statements
• Government Litigation