Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian: Defamation Claim over 1MDB Article Sharing
In Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian, the High Court of Singapore addressed applications to strike out both a defamation claim and a counterclaim. Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore, sued Leong Sze Hian for defamation after Leong shared an article on Facebook linking Lee to the 1MDB scandal. Leong filed a counterclaim based on abuse of process. The court, presided over by Aedit Abdullah J, struck out Leong's counterclaim, citing binding Court of Appeal authority that the tort of abuse of process is not recognized in Singapore law. However, the court dismissed Leong's application to strike out Lee's defamation claim, finding that there were sufficient triable issues to warrant a trial. The court determined that the meaning of the offending words and the context of their publication needed to be ascertained at trial.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Counterclaim struck out; application to strike out the claim dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Defamation suit by Lee Hsien Loong against Leong Sze Hian for sharing an article linking him to 1MDB. The court struck out the counterclaim but allowed the defamation claim to proceed to trial.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Hsien Loong | Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim | Individual | Application to strike out the claim dismissed | Neutral | |
| Leong Sze Hian | Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim | Individual | Counterclaim struck out | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The defendant shared an article on his Facebook Timeline linking the plaintiff to the 1MDB scandal.
- The article alleged that the plaintiff had entered into unfair agreements with former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak in exchange for money laundering.
- The defendant's Facebook post garnered multiple reactions, comments, and shares.
- The plaintiff claimed that the article and post were defamatory, implying that he was complicit in criminal activity relating to 1MDB.
- The defendant filed a counterclaim based on the tort of abuse of process.
- The plaintiff applied to strike out the counterclaim, and the defendant applied to strike out the plaintiff's claim.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian, Suit No 1185 of 2018 (Summonses Nos 148 and 428 of 2019), [2019] SGHC 66
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant shared a link to the Article on his Facebook Timeline | |
| Media outlets covered the Article | |
| The Straits Times reported responses by the Law and Home Affairs Minister Mr K Shanmugam and the High Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Malaysia that refuted the Article and its contents | |
| The Straits Times reported that the Monetary Authority of Singapore had filed a police report in respect of a similar article published on 5 November 2018 on the Straits Times Review | |
| IMDA issued a statement that the article on the STR’s website was “baseless and defamatory” | |
| IMDA sent a notice to the defendant | |
| Defendant removed the Post from his Facebook page | |
| Plaintiff filed the writ of summons in the Suit | |
| Defendant filed his defence and counterclaim in the Suit | |
| Plaintiff pleaded in his defence to the counterclaim that the counterclaim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action | |
| Plaintiff filed SUM 148/2019 | |
| Defendant filed SUM 428/2019 | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment |
7. Legal Issues
- Defamation
- Outcome: The court found that there were sufficient triable issues to warrant a trial on the defamation claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court held that the tort of abuse of process is not a recognised cause of action in Singapore, striking out the counterclaim.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 2 SLR 866
- Striking Out
- Outcome: The court applied the established principles for striking out claims and counterclaims, ultimately striking out the counterclaim but allowing the defamation claim to proceed.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Injunction
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
- Abuse of Process
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Media
- Government
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a 'reasonable cause of action'. |
| TMT Asia Ltd v BHP Billiton Marketing AG (Singapore Branch) and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 540 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claim based on a cause of action not recognised at law will be struck out. |
| Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 866 | Singapore | Cited as binding authority that the tort of abuse of process is not a recognised cause of action in Singapore. |
| Sunbreeze Group Investments Ltd and others v Sim Chye Hock Ron | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1242 | Singapore | Cited for reiterating the finding in Lee Tat that the tort of abuse of process is not recognised in Singapore. |
| Tan Chin Yew Joseph v Saxo Capital Markets Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 274 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that knowingly pursuing a hopeless claim is a factor that might lead to an award of indemnity costs. |
| Three Rivers District Council v The Governor and Co of the Bank of England (No 6) | English High Court | Yes | [2006] EWHC 816 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that knowingly pursuing a hopeless claim is a factor that might lead to an award of indemnity costs. |
| Anne Joseph Aaron (m w) and Others v Cheong Yip Seng and Others | High Court | Yes | [1995] SGHC 131 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that wholly unmeritorious conduct could also lead to an award of indemnity costs. |
| Crawford Adjusters (Cayman) Ltd v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd | Privy Council | Yes | [2014] AC 366 | Cayman Islands | Cited for the principle that the tort of malicious prosecution is a tool for constraining the arbitrary exercise of the powers of public prosecuting authorities. |
| Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 110 | Singapore | Cited regarding the determination of the natural and ordinary meaning of the offending words in the Article and Post. |
| Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] QB 946 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that it may be disproportionate to continue proceedings to vindicate a libel where the plaintiff had not suffered a “real and substantial tort”. |
| Yan Jun v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 752 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the principles in Jameel in the Singapore context. |
| Qingdao Bohai Construction Group Co, Ltd and others v Goh Teck Beng and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 977 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the principles in Jameel in the Singapore context. |
| Chan Boon Siang and others v Jasmin Nisban | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 498 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the principles in Jameel in the Singapore context. |
| Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and others v Nurdian Cuaca and others | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 117 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff’s case should only be struck out in a “plain and obvious” case. |
| Qroi Ltd v Pascoe, Ian and another | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 36 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff’s case should only be struck out in a “plain and obvious” case. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Seow Khee Leng | High Court | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 252 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that allegations of corruption and criminal conduct are “very grave charges” especially when made against the Prime Minister of a country. |
| Lee Kuan Yew and another v Vinocur John and others and another suit | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 38 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that allegations of corruption and criminal conduct are “very grave charges” especially when made against the Prime Minister of a country. |
| Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Art 14(1)(a) of the Constitution is subject to and restricted by the laws of defamation. |
| Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 357 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the trial court will have regard, inter alia, to the nature and gravity of the allegations, malice, and the defendant’s conduct when determining substantial damages. |
| Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 52 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that inferences or implications based on extrinsic evidence are not admissible as a matter of law in determining the natural and ordinary meaning. |
| Jeyasegaram David (alias David Gerald Jeyasegaram) v Ban Song Long David | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 712 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in determining the natural and ordinary meaning, the court should holistically consider the broad impression conveyed by the words that fall to be considered, and not the meaning of each word or sentence under analysis. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| O 18 r 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 18 rr 19(1)(b) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 18 rr 19(1)(c) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 18 rr 19(1)(d) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Art 14(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Defamation
- 1MDB
- Abuse of Process
- Striking Out
- Counterclaim
- Prime Minister
- Singapore
- Article
- Publication
15.2 Keywords
- defamation
- 1MDB
- Lee Hsien Loong
- Leong Sze Hian
- Singapore
- abuse of process
- striking out
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Libel, Slander and Defamation | 90 |
| Abuse of Process | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Defamation
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Rights
- Abuse of Process