Yeow Khim Seng Mark v Phan Ying Sheng: Defamation Claim in Social Media Posts
In Yeow Khim Seng Mark v Phan Ying Sheng, before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 21 June 2021, the appellant, Yeow Khim Seng Mark, appealed against the District Judge's decision in favor of the respondent, Phan Ying Sheng, in a defamation claim. The case arose from social media posts made by the appellant concerning the respondent's dispute with Revology Bikes Pte Ltd. The court allowed the appeal in part, adjusting the damages awarded to the respondent.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal in a defamation claim. The court found some social media posts defamatory, addressing justification, res judicata, and damages.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yeow Khim Seng Mark | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | |
| Phan Ying Sheng | Respondent, Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Ang Cheng Hock | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Respondent is a social media content creator in the motorcycling and travel industry.
- Appellant is a motorcycle mechanic with 13 years of experience.
- Dispute arose from a separate dispute between the respondent and Revology Bikes Pte Ltd.
- Revology provided and installed a dashboard camera on the respondent’s motorcycle in October 2018.
- The camera began malfunctioning.
- Respondent filed a claim against Revology with the Small Claims Tribunal on 21 December 2018.
- Small Claims Tribunal awarded compensatory damages of $4,630 to the respondent on 29 March 2019.
5. Formal Citations
- Yeow Khim Seng Mark v Phan Ying Sheng, District Court Appeal No 40 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 145
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Revology installed a dashboard camera on the respondent’s motorcycle. | |
| Respondent brought her motorcycle to Revology to replace the camera. | |
| Respondent filed a claim against Revology with the Small Claims Tribunal. | |
| Appellant responded to one of the respondent's posts on Facebook. | |
| Small Claims Tribunal awarded compensatory damages to the respondent. | |
| Appellant wrote a Facebook post. | |
| Appellant sent a WhatsApp message to a chat group. | |
| Appellant commented on an advertisement featuring the respondent on Samsung’s Facebook page. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Defamation
- Outcome: The court found some of the statements to be defamatory.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Defamatory statements
- Justification
- Malice
- Damages
- Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court found that the extended doctrine of res judicata did not apply.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Extended doctrine of res judicata
- Justification
- Outcome: The court found that the defence of justification was not made out.
- Category: Substantive
- Damages
- Outcome: The court adjusted the amount of general and aggravated damages awarded.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- General damages
- Special damages
- Aggravated damages
- Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Defamation Law
11. Industries
- Motorcycle
- Social Media
- Travel
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Golden Season Pte Ltd and others v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 751 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of what constitutes a defamatory statement. |
| 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 of the two broad senses of defamatory nature of a statement. |
| Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 506 | Singapore | Cited for the general principles in construing the natural and ordinary meanings of offending words. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Goh Chok Tong | High Court | Yes | [1983–1984] SLR(R) 745 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that words which are defamatory of a person remain as such even if they do not really lower him in the estimation of those to whom the words were uttered. |
| Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another | High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004 | Singapore | Cited for the elements a plaintiff who alleges innuendo bears the burden of proving. |
| The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd (nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd and others, other parties) and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1104 | Singapore | Cited for the distinct but interrelated principles of cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel and the extended doctrine of res judicata. |
| Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 1322 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is not strictly necessary for the parties in the earlier proceedings to be identical to those in the later proceedings for the extended doctrine of res judicata to apply. |
| Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 760 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is not strictly necessary for the parties in the earlier proceedings to be identical to those in the later proceedings for the extended doctrine of res judicata to apply. |
| Henderson v Henderson | N/A | Yes | (1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313 | N/A | Cited for the extended doctrine of res judicata. |
| Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 46 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for the injury to his reputation and the hurt to his feelings, and not readily quantifiable by mathematical calculation. |
| 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 factors relevant to the determination of the quantum of general damages. |
| Browne v Dunn | N/A | Yes | (1893) 6 R 67 | N/A | Cited for the rule that where a submission is going to be made about a witness or the evidence given by the witness which is of such a nature and of such importance that it ought fairly to have been put to the witness to give him the opportunity to meet that submission, to counter it or to explain himself, then if it has not been so put, the party concerned will not be allowed to make that submission. |
| Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 292 | Singapore | Cited for the rule in Browne v Dunn. |
| Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 86 | Singapore | Cited for the factors which the court can take into account in deciding whether to award aggravated damages. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Defamation
- Social media
- Justification
- Res judicata
- Damages
- Motorcycle
- Fairings
- Small Claims Tribunal
- Cyber bullying
- Poser
- Cheapskate
- Free loader
15.2 Keywords
- defamation
- social media
- motorcycle
- Singapore
- appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Defamation | 95 |
| Res Judicata | 60 |
| Damages | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Defamation
- Social Media Law
- Civil Litigation