Lee Kok Choy v. Leong Keng Woo: Defamation Claim over Corruption Allegations

In Lee Kok Choy v Leong Keng Woo, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a defamation claim by Lee Kok Choy against Leong Keng Woo, arising from emails sent by Leong alleging corruption. Lee, an executive director at Manhattan Resources Limited (MRL), claimed the emails injured his reputation. Leong raised defenses of limitation and qualified privilege. The court, presided over by Justice Dedar Singh Gill, found the claim was not time-barred, Leong acted with malice, and awarded Lee S$50,000 in damages.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Defamation suit. Lee Kok Choy sues Leong Keng Woo for libel over emails alleging corruption. The court found in favor of Lee, awarding damages.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lee Kok ChoyPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWonPillai Pradeep G, Wong Shi Rui Jonas, Josiah Tham
Leong Keng WooDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLostChe Wei Chin

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Dedar Singh GillJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Pillai Pradeep GPRP Law LLC
Wong Shi Rui JonasPRP Law LLC
Josiah ThamPRP Law LLC
Che Wei ChinCovenant Chambers LLC

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff was an executive director of Manhattan Resources Limited from 2006 to 2012.
  2. The defendant was an employee of one of MRL’s indirectly owned subsidiaries.
  3. The defendant sent two e-mails on 13 August and 14 August 2011 to Mr. Ho Soo Ching, the CEO of MRL.
  4. The emails contained statements attributing a series of wrongdoings to the plaintiff.
  5. The plaintiff claimed he only saw the emails on 25 November 2017.
  6. The defendant argued the plaintiff's claim was time-barred and raised the defense of qualified privilege.
  7. The court found the defendant acted with malice and the claim was not time-barred.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lee Kok Choy v Leong Keng Woo, Suit No 664 of 2019, [2022] SGHC 3

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Lee Kok Choy became an executive director of Manhattan Resources Limited
Alleged corruption practices by Lee Kok Choy and Mr. Kelvin Loh began
Leong Keng Woo sent the first email to Mr. Ho Soo Ching
Leong Keng Woo sent the second email to Mr. Ho Soo Ching
Mr. Ho Soo Ching prepared a whistle-blowing report
MRL Board meeting discussing the whistle-blowing report
Meeting held with members of the MRL Board
Lee Kok Choy claimed to have discovered the emails
Letter of Demand sent to the defendant
Plaintiff instituted the present suit
Trial began
Trial concluded
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of defamation.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Qualified Privilege
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant was not entitled to the protection of qualified privilege given that he published the E-mails to Mr. Ho with malice.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Limitation of Actions
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff’s action for libel was brought well within the time limit of three years.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Apology
  3. Retraction of statements

9. Cause of Actions

  • Libel
  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
IPP Financial Advisers Pte Ltd v Saimee bin Jumaat and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 272SingaporeCited for the principle that sections 6(1)(a) and 24A of the Limitation Act do not apply concurrently and that section 24A applies to all claims in tort.
Yan Jun v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2015] 1 SLR 752SingaporeCited for the principle that a purposive interpretation of s 24A(1) would entail reading the phrase “breach of duty” as encompassing all torts.
Lian Kok Hong v Ow Wah Foong and anotherUnknownYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 165SingaporeCited for the principle that for actions in tort which require proof of damage, the cause of action accrues when the damage occurs.
SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co LtdUnknownYes[2016] 1 SLR 1471SingaporeCited regarding the legal burden of proof.
Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appealUnknownYes[2010] 1 SLR 52SingaporeCited for the definition of defamatory statements.
Qingdao Bohai Construction Group Co, Ltd and others v Goh Teck Beng and anotherUnknownYes[2016] 4 SLR 977SingaporeCited for the principle that it is sufficient to make out a prima facie case of defamation that one other person, apart from the plaintiff, has seen, read, or heard the communication.
Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co IncUnknownYes[2005] 2 WLR 1614EnglandCited for the general principle that a claim which discloses no real and substantial tort is liable to be struck out for being an abuse of process of the court.
Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze HianUnknownYes[2021] 4 SLR 1128SingaporeCited for discussion of the Jameel principle.
Chan Boon Siang and others v Jasmin NisbanUnknownYes[2018] 3 SLR 498SingaporeCited for the principle that each case must be determined on its own facts.
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua BenjaminUnknownYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 46SingaporeCited for the principle that damages to be assessed for the original publication include foreseeable loss, and that in turn encompasses loss arising out of foreseeable republication.
Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto SiaUnknownYes[2014] 1 SLR 639SingaporeCited for the principle that damages to be assessed for the original publication include foreseeable loss, and that in turn encompasses loss arising out of foreseeable republication.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appealUnknownYes[2010] 4 SLR 331SingaporeCited for the principle that the defence of qualified privilege can be defeated by the presence of malice.
Horrocks v LoweUnknownYes[1975] AC 135UnknownCited for the principle that the defence of qualified privilege can be defeated by the presence of malice.
Hady Hartanto v Yee Kit Hong and othersHigh CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 1127SingaporeCited for the principle that it is for the plaintiff to prove that the privilege was lost because of malice.
Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JPHigh CourtYes[2000] SGHC 111SingaporeCited for the principle that evidence of the defendant’s conduct and actions prior to the publication, at the time of the publication and after the publication, including the entire surrounding circumstances, must be viewed in totality.
The Wellness Group Pte Ltd and another v OSIM International Ltd and others and another suitUnknownYes[2016] 3 SLR 729SingaporeCited for the principle that where the republisher uses language that is his own, the defendant who can be said to have authorised the republication will remain liable so long as the republication adheres to the sense and substance of the statement given by the defendant.
Goh Lay Khim and others v Isabel Redrup Agency Pte Ltd and another appealUnknownYes[2017] 1 SLR 546SingaporeCited for the principle that the defendant’s conduct following the publication of the impugned material can support an inference that the defendant published those materials out of malice.
Price Waterhouse Intrust Ltd v Wee Choo Keong and othersUnknownYes[1994] 2 SLR(R) 1070SingaporeCited for the legal proposition that a publisher’s failure to obtain independent verification of the alleged defamatory statement does not in itself demonstrate a lack of honest belief.
Greers Ltd v Pearman and Corder LtdUnknownYes(1922) 39 RPC 406UnknownCited for the principle that the nature of the unfounded claim may be evidence that there was not an honest belief in it.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appealUnknownYes[2010] 4 SLR 357SingaporeCited for factors in assessing the quantum of general damages.
Koh Sin Chong Freddie v Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others and another appealUnknownYes[2013] 4 SLR 629SingaporeCited for the principle that the total figure for both general and aggravated damages should not exceed fair compensation for the injury suffered by the claimant.
Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and othersUnknownYes[2010] 3 SLR 110SingaporeCited for the principle that the court ought to provide a breakdown of the sums awarded as general damages and as aggravated damages.
Yeo Nai Meng v Ei-Nets Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 73SingaporeCited as a case precedent for damages.
Isabel Redrup Agency Pte Ltd v A L Dakshnamoorthy and others and another suitHigh CourtYes[2016] 2 SLR 634SingaporeCited as a case precedent for damages.
McManus and others v BeckhamUnknownYes[2002] 1 WLR 2982UnknownCited for the principle that even a partial publication of the original sting could be causative of damage.
Ei-Nets Ltd and another v Yeo Nai MengCourt of AppealYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 153SingaporeCited as a case precedent for damages.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Limitation ActSingapore
Limitation ActSingapore
Limitation ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defamation
  • Libel
  • Qualified privilege
  • Malice
  • Limitation Act
  • Republication
  • Whistle-blowing report
  • MRL Board
  • Audit committee
  • Damages

15.2 Keywords

  • Defamation
  • Libel
  • Qualified privilege
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Tort
  • Limitation
  • Damages

16. Subjects

  • Defamation
  • Tort Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Limitation of Actions

17. Areas of Law

  • Tort
  • Defamation
  • Limitation of Actions