Qingdao Bohai v Goh Teck Beng: Defamation, Conspiracy, Internet Defamation

In Qingdao Bohai Construction Group Co., Ltd and others v Goh Teck Beng and another, the Singapore High Court addressed a defamation suit brought by Qingdao Bohai Construction Group Co., Ltd, Qingjian Group Co., Ltd, Qingjian Realty (South Pacific) Group Pte. Ltd., Du Bo, and Yuan Hong Jun against Goh Teck Beng and Ng Teck Chuan, concerning defamatory material published in print media and online. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were responsible for publishing defamatory articles that damaged their reputations. The court, led by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding insufficient evidence to prove that the defendants published the defamatory material. The court also addressed claims of conspiracy, which were also dismissed due to the failure to prove the underlying defamation claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' action dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case involving defamation claims against defendants for online and print articles. The court dismissed the claims due to lack of proof of publication.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Qingdao Bohai Construction Group Co., LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedDismissed
Qingjian Group Co., LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedDismissed
Qingjian Realty (South Pacific) Group Pte. Ltd.PlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedDismissed
Du BoPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedDismissed
Yuan Hong JunPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedDismissed
Goh Teck BengDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon
Ng Teck ChuanDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lee Eng BengRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Quek Mong HuaLee & Lee

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs alleged defamatory material in print media and on the Internet.
  2. Online defamation involved 12 articles on foreign websites.
  3. Two similar articles were published in Taiwan newspapers.
  4. Plaintiffs claimed defendants published or caused publication of articles.
  5. Defendants denied publishing the articles.
  6. Plaintiffs did not rely on electronic evidence to trace publication to defendants.
  7. Plaintiffs claimed publication of online articles in Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Qingdao Bohai Construction Group Co, Ltd and others v Goh Teck Beng and another, Suit No 99 of 2014, [2016] SGHC 142

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Qingdao Bohai Construction Group Co., Ltd established.
P1 and P2 began developing residential projects with HuanYu.
HuanYu and P1 and/or P2 became embroiled in lawsuits.
Qingjian Realty (South Pacific) Group Pte. Ltd. registered in Singapore.
News articles published in Taiwan.
Encounter with D2.
News Articles sent to United Overseas Bank Limited.
Statement of Claim filed.
Trial began.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the element of publication, a necessary component of defamation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Defamatory meaning
      • Justification
      • Publication
      • Reference
  2. Conspiracy
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the conspiracy claim as it was dependent on proof of the same facts needed to support the defamation claim, which was not established.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no real and substantial tort committed in this jurisdiction and that the Jameel doctrine can serve as an additional reason to dismiss the action.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for defamation
  2. Damages for conspiracy

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation
  • Conspiracy by unlawful means
  • Conspiracy by lawful means

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co IncEnglish Court of AppealYes[2005] QB 946England and WalesCited for abuse of process principles in defamation claims.
Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi LingHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2014] SGHC 230SingaporeCited as an example where the defendant was the owner and writer of the blog where the offensive articles were posted.
Attorney-General v Au Wai PangHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2015] 2 SLR 352SingaporeCited as an example where the defendant was the owner and writer of the blog where the offensive articles were posted.
Au Wai Pang v Attorney-GeneralCourt of Appeal of SingaporeYes[2016] 1 SLR 992SingaporeCited as an example where the defendant was the owner and writer of the blog where the offensive articles were posted.
Dow Jones & Company Inc v GutnickHigh Court of AustraliaYes(2002) 201 CLR 575AustraliaCited for the proposition that publication is a bilateral act.
Golden Season Pte Ltd and others v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd and anotherHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2015] 2 SLR 751SingaporeCited Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick for the proposition that publication is a bilateral act.
Wayne Crookes and West Coast Title Search Ltd. v Jon NewtonSupreme Court of CanadaYes[2011] 3 SCR 269CanadaCited for the two components of publication.
Ng Koo Kay Benedict and another v Zim Integrated Shipping Services LtdHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2010] 2 SLR 860SingaporeCited Gutnick and Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd on Internet publication for the purpose of defamation law.
Godfrey v Demon Internet LtdQueen's Bench DivisionYes[2001] QB 201England and WalesCited on Internet publication for the purpose of defamation law.
Al Amoudi v Brisard and anotherEnglish High CourtYes[2007] 1 WLR 113England and WalesCited with approval in Benedict Ng and Zhu Yong Zhen v AIA Singapore Pte Ltd and another, the English High Court held that there was no presumption of law that there had been substantial publication and the plaintiff bore the burden of proving that the material in question had been accessed and downloaded.
Zhu Yong Zhen v AIA Singapore Pte Ltd and anotherHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2013] 2 SLR 478SingaporeCited Al Amoudi v Brisard and another with approval.
Jameel (Mohammed) and another v Wall Street Journal Europe SprlHouse of LordsYes[2007] 1 AC 359England and WalesCited for the proposition that a corporation must prove that it had a reputation in the jurisdiction at the time of publication as a prerequisite for pursuing a libel claim.
Atlantis World Group of Companies NV and another v Gruppo Editoriale L’Espresso SPAQueen's Bench DivisionYes[2008] EWHC 1323 (QB)England and WalesCited for the proposition that a corporation must prove that it had a reputation in the jurisdiction at the time of publication as a prerequisite for pursuing a libel claim.
Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and othersHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2010] 3 SLR 110SingaporeCited Rubber Improvement Ltd. and Another v Daily Telegraph Ltd. for the proposition that a corporate plaintiff in defamation actions cannot be injured in its feelings, and that it can only be “injured in its pocket”.
Rubber Improvement Ltd. and Another v Daily Telegraph Ltd.House of LordsYes[1964] AC 234England and WalesCited for the proposition that a corporate plaintiff in defamation actions cannot be injured in its feelings, and that it can only be “injured in its pocket”.
ATU and others v ATYHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2015] 4 SLR 1159SingaporeCited Rubber Improvement Ltd. and Another v Daily Telegraph Ltd. for the proposition that a corporate plaintiff in defamation actions cannot be injured in its feelings, and that it can only be “injured in its pocket”.
Multigroup Bulgaria Holding AD v Oxford Analytica LtdHigh Court of JusticeYes[2001] EMLR 28England and WalesCited Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd. and Others for the holding that “a trading corporation is entitled to sue in respect of defamatory matters which can be seen as having a tendency to damage it in the way of its business”.
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd. and OthersHouse of LordsYes[1993] AC 534England and WalesCited for the holding that “a trading corporation is entitled to sue in respect of defamatory matters which can be seen as having a tendency to damage it in the way of its business”.
Helen Marie Steel and David Morris v McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s Restaurants LtdEnglish Court of AppealYesunreported, EWCA, Pill and May LJJ and Keene J, 31 March 1999England and WalesCited as a case where a United States parent company was able to prove a reputation in England where business was carried out through a local subsidiary under the McDonald’s brand.
Palace Films Pty Ltd v Fairfax Media Publications Pty LtdNew South Wales Supreme CourtYes[2012] NSWSC 1136AustraliaCited for the legal proposition that the reputations of different companies are distinct, even when the companies sharing the same trading names are within the same corporate group in the same jurisdiction.
Yan Jun v Attorney-GeneralCourt of Appeal of SingaporeYes[2015] 1 SLR 752SingaporeConsidered Jameel, albeit in obiter.
Lonrho PLC. and Others v Fayed and Others (No. 5)English Court of AppealYes[1993] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesReliance was placed on the observations of the English Court of Appeal in Lonrho PLC. and Others v Fayed and Others (No. 5) [1993] 1 WLR 1489 (at 1493D–F and 1502D–E).
Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appealCourt of Appeal of SingaporeYes[2010] 1 SLR 52SingaporeTo successfully establish the defence of justification, the defendant need only prove the truth of the substance or gist of the offending words (as opposed to those parts of the offending words which do not add to the sting of the alleged defamation).
Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appealCourt of Appeal of SingaporeYes[2012] 1 SLR 506SingaporeTo successfully establish the defence of justification, the defendant need only prove the truth of the substance or gist of the offending words (as opposed to those parts of the offending words which do not add to the sting of the alleged defamation).
Ong and Co Pte Ltd v Quah Kay TeeHigh Court of SingaporeYes[1996] 1 SLR(R) 782SingaporeAs with most civil cases, the evidential burden would shift or alternate from one party to the other in the course of a trial according to the nature and strength of the evidence offered in support of or in opposition to the main fact to be established.
Rhesa Shipping Co. S.A. v Edmunds (“The Popi M”)House of LordsYes[1985] 1 WLR 948England and WalesIt is open to the court to say that the evidence leaves the court in doubt as to whether the event occurred or not, and that the party who bears the legal burden of proving that the event occurred has failed to discharge that burden.
Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA (trading as Rabobank International), Singapore Branch v Motorola Electronics Pte LtdCourt of Appeal of SingaporeYes[2011] 2 SLR 63SingaporeThe legal burden of establishing the truth of the allegation is on the defendants.
SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co LtdCourt of Appeal of SingaporeYes[2016] 1 SLR 1471SingaporeThe legal burden of establishing the truth of the allegation is on the defendants.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Defamation ActSingapore
Evidence ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Internet defamation
  • Publication
  • Defamatory meaning
  • Justification
  • Abuse of process
  • Corporate plaintiff
  • Trading reputation
  • Circumstantial evidence
  • CCDI report
  • Online articles

15.2 Keywords

  • defamation
  • internet
  • publication
  • Singapore
  • construction
  • reputation
  • conspiracy

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Defamation95
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means70
Abuse of Process60
Civil Litigation60
Internet Law50
Company Law40
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Defamation
  • Tort Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Internet Law