Ezion Holdings Ltd v Credit Suisse AG: Defamation Claim & Striking Out Plea of Malice

In Ezion Holdings Ltd v Credit Suisse AG, the Singapore High Court heard an appeal regarding the striking out of a plea of malice in a defamation action. Ezion Holdings Ltd sued Credit Suisse AG over an analyst report and email. The Assistant Registrar struck out Ezion's plea of malice, and the High Court affirmed this decision, finding Ezion's evidence factually unsustainable. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered Ezion to pay costs to Credit Suisse.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the Assistant Registrar's decision to strike out the plea of malice was affirmed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment in a defamation action. The court struck out the plaintiff's plea of malice due to insufficient evidence.

1.7 Decision Date

1 June 2017

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ezion Holdings Ltd	Plaintiff, Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Kenneth Tan SC, Ramachandran Doraisamy Raghunath, Lee Weiming Andrew, Joan Xue, Roshan Singh
Credit Suisse AG	Defendant, Respondent	Corporation	Plea of Malice Struck Out	Won	Harpreet Singh Nehal SC, Foo Chuan Min Jerald, Goh Rui Xian Elsa

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Hoo Sheau Peng	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Kenneth Tan SC	Kenneth Tan Partnership
Ramachandran Doraisamy Raghunath	Peter Doraisamy LLC
Lee Weiming Andrew	Peter Doraisamy LLC
Joan Xue	Peter Doraisamy LLC
Roshan Singh	Peter Doraisamy LLC
Harpreet Singh Nehal SC	Cavenagh Law LLP
Foo Chuan Min Jerald	Cavenagh Law LLP
Goh Rui Xian Elsa	Cavenagh Law LLP

4. Facts

Ezion is a company listed on the Singapore Exchange.
Credit Suisse published an analyst report on Ezion on 19 May 2015.
The report discussed a lawsuit against Ezion by Atlantic Marine Services BV (AMS).
AMS alleged Ezion was involved in a conspiracy to induce Maersk to breach contracts.
Credit Suisse also sent an email on 20 May 2015 referring to the report.
AMS discontinued the suit against Ezion on 17 June 2015.
Ezion claimed the publications were defamatory and sought damages.

5. Formal Citations

Ezion Holdings Ltd v Credit Suisse AG, Suit No 1033 of 2015(Registrar’s Appeal No 212 of 2016), [2017] SGHC 137

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2015-04-24	Atlantic Marine Services BV commenced High Court Suit No 401 against Ezion.
2015-05-18	The AMS suit was reported by Bloomberg, the Straits Times and the Business Times.
2015-05-18	Ezion issued a press statement through SGX.
2015-05-19	Credit Suisse published the Report.
2015-05-20	Credit Suisse sent the E-mail.
2015-06-17	AMS discontinued the AMS suit against Ezion.
2015-06-18	Ezion's solicitors informed Credit Suisse that Ezion considered the Report defamatory.
2015-06-25	Credit Suisse's solicitors replied denying that the Report was defamatory.
2015-10-09	Ezion commenced the present action against Credit Suisse.
2015-11-03	Credit Suisse filed its defence.
2015-11-24	Ezion filed its reply.
2015-11-27	Ezion filed its amended reply.
2016-01-05	Both parties filed striking out applications.
2016-10-10	Hearing date.
2016-11-14	Hearing date.
2017-02-15	Hearing date.
2017-06-02	Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

Defamation
- Outcome: The court found that the plea of malice was factually unsustainable.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Qualified privilege
  - Malice
- Related Cases:
  - [2003] EMLR 218
  - [2010] 4 SLR 331
Striking Out
- Outcome: The court upheld the decision to strike out the plea of malice.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2012] 4 SLR 546

8. Remedies Sought

Damages
Injunction
Costs

9. Cause of Actions

Defamation

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Chase v News Group Newspapers	N/A	Yes	[2003] EMLR 218	N/A	Cited for the principle of three levels of meaning when considering whether words are defamatory.
Ng Koo Kay Benedict and another v Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2010] 2 SLR 860	Singapore	Applied the principle in Chase v News Group Newspapers.
Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appeal	N/A	Yes	[2012] 1 SLR 506	Singapore	Cited regarding the 'antidote' curing the 'bane' of defamatory sting.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal	N/A	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 331	Singapore	Cited for the principle that malice can defeat a defence of qualified privilege.
The Wellness Group Pte Ltd and another v OSIM International and others and another suit	N/A	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 729	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a plaintiff seeking to establish malice can prove that the defendant either lacked honest belief in the truth of the statements or had the dominant intention of injuring the plaintiff.
Roberts and another v Bass	High Court of Australia	Yes	(2002) 212 CLR 1	Australia	Cited for the principle that a defendant’s lack of honest belief provides a premise for inferring that the defendant was actuated by an improper motive.
ABZ v Singapore Press Holdings Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 648	Singapore	Cited for the principle that carelessness, impulsiveness or even irrationality in arriving at a belief that the statements are true is not to be equated with recklessness.
Nirumalan K Pillay and others v A Balakrishnan and others	N/A	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR(R) 650	Singapore	Cited for the principle that plaintiffs who intend to allege express malice must be in possession of facts and matters which support malice.
Claire Henderson v The London Borough of Hackney and The Learning Trust	N/A	Yes	[2010] EWHC 1651 (QB)	N/A	Cited for the principle that a plea of malice is tantamount to one of fraud or dishonesty and must be pleaded with scrupulous care and specificity.
Bray v Deutsche Bank AG	N/A	Yes	[2008] EWHC 1263 (QB)	N/A	Cited for the principle that where the defendant is a company, the claimant should give particulars of the person or persons through whom it is intended to fix the corporation with the necessary malicious intent.
The Bunga Melati 5	N/A	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 546	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a frivolous or vexatious claim is one that is plainly or obviously unsustainable, be it legally or factually.
Lee Kuan Yew v Davies Derek Gwyn and others	N/A	Yes	[1989] 2 SLR(R) 544	Singapore	Cited regarding recklessness in failing to verify facts from a prejudiced source.
Price Waterhouse Intrust Ltd v Wee Choo Keong and others	N/A	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR(R) 1070	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a failure to obtain independent verification did not in itself demonstrate a lack of honest belief.
Hytech Builders Pte Ltd v Goh Teng Poh Karen	N/A	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR(R) 236	Singapore	Cited regarding failure to independently verify information before asserting a company was on the verge of collapse.
DHKW Marketing and another v Nature’s Farm Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 774	Singapore	Cited regarding malice inferred from refusal to apologise after awareness of a false statement.
Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor	N/A	Yes	[2000] SGHC 111	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the defence of qualified privilege can arise where a defendant makes a statement pursuant to a legal, social or moral duty.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court O 18 r 19
Rules of Court O 18 rule 12(1)(b)
Rules of Court O 78 r 3(3)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Defamation Act (Cap 75, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Defamation
Malice
Qualified privilege
Analyst report
Striking out
Reckless indifference
Honest belief
AMS suit
SGX statement

15.2 Keywords

defamation
malice
striking out
credit suisse
ezion
singapore
high court

16. Subjects

Defamation
Civil Procedure
Tort

17. Areas of Law

Civil Procedure
Defamation Law
Tort Law