Quantum Automation Pte Ltd v Saravanan Apparsamy: Defamation Claim by Employer Against Former Employee

Quantum Automation Pte Ltd sued Saravanan Apparsamy in the High Court of Singapore for defamation based on emails sent to Quantum's customers. The court, presided over by Woo Bih Li J, found the emails defamatory and granted an injunction against Saravanan Apparsamy. The court also granted interlocutory judgment to Quantum against Saravanan Apparsamy for defamation with Quantum’s damages to be assessed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Tort

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Quantum Automation sued Saravanan Apparsamy for defamation based on emails he sent to Quantum's customers. The court found the emails defamatory and granted an injunction.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Quantum Automation Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Saravanan ApparsamyDefendantIndividualInjunction GrantedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Eugene HoEugene Ho & Partners

4. Facts

  1. Quantum Automation sued its former employee, Saravanan Apparsamy, for defamation.
  2. Saravanan Apparsamy sent emails to Quantum's customers containing allegedly defamatory statements.
  3. Quantum had previously sued Saravanan Apparsamy in Suit No 965 of 2017, which was settled.
  4. Saravanan Apparsamy signed an undertaking agreeing not to disclose confidential information or trade secrets.
  5. The disputed emails were sent after the settlement of the first suit.
  6. Saravanan Apparsamy did not file a defence in time, precluding him from relying on the defence of justification.
  7. Quantum alleged that Saravanan Apparsamy acted maliciously in sending the emails.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Quantum Automation Pte Ltd v Saravanan Apparsamy, Suit No 1204 of 2017, [2019] SGHC 27

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Saravanan Apparsamy employed by Quantum Automation Pte Ltd
Saravanan Apparsamy's employment with Quantum Automation Pte Ltd ends
Quantum Automation Pte Ltd commenced action in Suit No 965 of 2017 against Saravanan Apparsamy
Saravanan Apparsamy signed an undertaking
Quantum Automation Pte Ltd filed a notice of discontinuance of the 1st Suit
Saravanan Apparsamy sent the 1st Disputed Email to William Yee of the Institute of Technical Education
Saravanan Apparsamy sent the 2nd Disputed Email to Raja Khabir of the National Heritage Board
Quantum Automation Pte Ltd's lawyers sent an email attaching a letter of demand to Saravanan Apparsamy
Saravanan Apparsamy sent the 3rd Disputed Email to Raymond Chan of the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources
Quantum Automation Pte Ltd filed the writ for the present action in Suit No 1204 of 2017
Saravanan Apparsamy allegedly served a defence and counterclaim on Quantum Automation Pte Ltd's lawyers
Writ for the 2nd Suit was served on Saravanan Apparsamy in India
First trial date
Mediation held at the Singapore Mediation Centre
Second trial date
Saravanan Apparsamy's closing submissions
Judgment reserved
Judgment

7. Legal Issues

  1. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court found that the emails sent by the defendant were defamatory of the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649
      • [2015] 2 SLR 751
  2. Injunction
    • Outcome: The court granted an injunction against the defendant to prevent further publication of defamatory statements.
    • Category: Remedial
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] SGHC 230

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Building Management Systems

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and othersCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649SingaporeCited for the three elements required to establish liability in the tort of defamation.
Golden Season Pte Ltd and others v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] 2 SLR 751SingaporeCited for reiterating the three elements to establish liability in the tort of defamation and for the definition of a defamatory statement.
Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 SLR 506SingaporeCited for the guiding principles in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of words used in a potentially defamatory statement.
Jameel (Mohammed) and another v Wall Street Journal Europe SprlHouse of LordsYes[2007] 1 AC 359United KingdomCited for the principle that under the law of libel, damage is presumed and there is no need to prove special damage to establish the tort of libel, even for corporate bodies.
Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi LingHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 230SingaporeCited for the principle that an injunction should be granted against a defendant if there is reason to believe they may further publish defamatory words.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 18 r 21 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defamatory words
  • Building management systems
  • Undertaking
  • Injunction
  • Malice
  • Justification
  • Libel

15.2 Keywords

  • Defamation
  • Injunction
  • Building Management Systems
  • Employment
  • Singapore
  • Tort

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Defamation Law95
Torts90
Injunctions70
Civil Practice50
Deeds of Undertaking30
Evidence30
Commercial Disputes20
Costs20
Breach of Contract20
Contract Law20
Personal Injury10

16. Subjects

  • Defamation
  • Employment Law
  • Tort