Terrence Fernandez v Genevieve Lim: Defamation, Conspiracy, and Harassment Suit

In Terrence Fernandez v Genevieve Lim Shao Ying and Goh Juak Kin, the High Court of Singapore heard a case involving claims of defamation, conspiracy to injure by defamation, and harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act. The plaintiff, Terrence Fernandez, sued Genevieve Lim Shao Ying and Goh Juak Kin, arising from a work complaint filed by Lim against Fernandez. The court dismissed all of Fernandez's claims, finding no basis for defamation, conspiracy, or harassment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

All claims dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Defamation suit involving a work complaint. The court dismissed the defamation, conspiracy, and harassment claims.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Genevieve Lim filed a work complaint against Terrence Fernandez.
  2. Terrence Fernandez sued Genevieve Lim for defamation, conspiracy, and harassment.
  3. The complaint arose from Lim's employment with Serangoon Gardens Country Club.
  4. Fernandez was the President of the Club.
  5. Lim complained of Fernandez’s allegedly “insulting, threatening remarks and comments against [her]”.
  6. The Disciplinary Committee dismissed the charges against Terrence Fernandez.
  7. The Club’s Constitution vests the General Committee with the responsibility of disciplining office bearers.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Terrence Fernandez v Lim Shao Ying Genevieve and another, Suit No 194 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 278

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Goh Juak Kin joined the Serangoon Gardens Country Club as General Manager.
Terrence Fernandez became Chairman of the Club’s Membership Relations Department Sub-Committee.
Genevieve Lim joined the Serangoon Gardens Country Club as Membership Relations Manager.
Genevieve Lim communicated her worries to Terrence Fernandez.
Genevieve Lim wrote a formal letter of complaint about Terrence Fernandez.
Roles of the General Committee and management clarified at a General Committee Meeting.
Mediation Session held between Terrence Fernandez and Genevieve Lim.
Alfred Wong visited the Serangoon Gardens Country Club.
Terrence Fernandez sent an email to Goh Juak Kin regarding the complaint against Genevieve Lim.
Goh Juak Kin met with Alfred Wong to resolve the complaint.
Terrence Fernandez proposed a meeting with Randy Sng to discuss the Service Quality.
Genevieve Lim filed a formal complaint against Terrence Fernandez.
Randy Sng sent the Complaint to Terrence Fernandez.
Terrence Fernandez wrote to ask for specific information of workplace harassment and victimisation.
Terrence Fernandez sent a further email expressing a willingness to meet.
The Exco met without Terrence Fernandez.
Terrence Fernandez was removed as Membership Relations Department Chairman.
A disciplinary committee took over investigations.
The disciplinary committee requested Goh Juak Kin for a list of all conduct that Genevieve Lim was relying upon.
The disciplinary committee requested Goh Juak Kin for a list of all conduct that Genevieve Lim was relying upon.
The disciplinary committee requested Goh Juak Kin for a list of all conduct that Genevieve Lim was relying upon.
Terrence Fernandez was served with formal charges.
Terrence Fernandez was elected president of the Club.
Goh Juak Kin and Linda Loke resigned.
Genevieve Lim resigned.
The charges were dismissed by the new disciplinary committee.
Terrence Fernandez filed this suit against the defendants.
Trial began.
Trial continued.
Plaintiff’s Closing Submissions dated.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court found that the elements of defamation were not made out and the claim was dismissed.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to properly plead defamatory statement
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 2 SLR 751
  2. Conspiracy
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the conspiracy claim, finding no evidence of collusion and no predominant intention to injure the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] SGCA 47
  3. Harassment
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the harassment claim, finding that the conduct was reasonable.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found no evidence of negligence on the part of Mr. Goh and dismissed the claim.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for Defamation
  2. Damages for Conspiracy to Injure
  3. Damages for Harassment
  4. Damages for Negligence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation
  • Conspiracy to Injure
  • Harassment
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Social Club

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Golden Season Pte Ltd and others v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] 2 SLR 751SingaporeCited for the elements of defamation.
Lait v Evening Standard LtdN/AYes[2011] 1 WLR 2973N/ACited regarding subtle distinctions in defamation suits.
DDSA Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Times Newspapers Ltd and anotherEnglish Court of AppealYes[1972] 3 All ER 417EnglandCited for guidance on addressing defective pleadings in defamation cases.
Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appealHigh CourtYes[2012] 1 SLR 506SingaporeCited for the meaning of impugned statement in defamation.
Segar Ashok v Koh Fonn Lyn Veronica and another suitHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 168SingaporeCited regarding scepticism towards words uttered by someone's enemy.
Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 110SingaporeCited for the definition of malice.
D v Kong Sim GuanN/AYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 146SingaporeCited as an example of a statement-maker protecting his/her self-interest, with the recipient having a corresponding interest in receiving such information.
Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto SiaHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 639SingaporeCited for the purpose of the defence of qualified privilege.
Huntley v WardN/AYes(1859) 141 ER 557N/ACited for the latitude afforded to those who fall under the protection of qualified privilege.
Smith v Streatfeild and othersN/AYes[1913] 3 KB 764N/ACited for the principle upon which the law of qualified privilege rests.
Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appealHigh CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 52SingaporeCited for the rule in Slim regarding defamatory meaning.
Visionhealthone Corp Pte Ltd v HD Holdings Pte Ltd and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] SGCA 47SingaporeCited for the elements of lawful and unlawful means conspiracy.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyHigh CourtYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100SingaporeCited regarding the duty of care.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defamation
  • Conspiracy
  • Harassment
  • Qualified Privilege
  • Justification
  • Workplace Complaint
  • General Committee
  • Disciplinary Committee
  • Malice
  • Negligence

15.2 Keywords

  • defamation
  • conspiracy
  • harassment
  • workplace
  • complaint
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Defamation Law
  • Tort Law
  • Harassment Law
  • Conspiracy Law
  • Employment Law