Foo v Woo: Defamation Claim over 'Illegal Deals' & Professional Misconduct Allegations

In the case of Foo Diana versus Woo Mui Chan, heard in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 15 May 2023, the plaintiff, Diana Foo, an advocate and solicitor, brought a defamation claim against the defendant, Woo Mui Chan, concerning two statements made by the defendant. The court found that both statements were defamatory and that the defenses of justification and qualified privilege did not apply. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendant liable for defamation, with damages to be assessed separately.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Diana Foo sues Woo Mui Chan for defamation over allegations of illegal deals and professional misconduct. The court found Woo liable for defamation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Diana FooPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Woo Mui ChanDefendantIndividualDefendant found liable for defamationLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
S MohanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Alfred DodwellDodwell & Co LLC
Tan Hiang Teck SimonA C Fergusson Law Corporation
Tan-Goh Song Gek AliceA C Fergusson Law Corporation
Tan Yu Poh SusanChen Youbao

4. Facts

  1. Diana Foo is an advocate and solicitor.
  2. Woo Mui Chan started a restaurant called Z Bistro and Bar in 2015.
  3. Foo and Woo were introduced in 2015 and became friends.
  4. Foo advanced several loans to Woo.
  5. The relationship between Foo and Woo deteriorated.
  6. Woo posted a public review on LSS' Google page accusing Foo of forcing her to do illegal deals.
  7. Woo lodged a written complaint to LSS alleging misconduct by Foo.
  8. Foo claimed the statements were defamatory.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Foo Diana v Woo Mui Chan, Suit No 510 of 2021, [2023] SGHC 221

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Diana Foo called to the Singapore bar.
Diana Foo and Woo Mui Chan were introduced.
Woo Mui Chan started Z Bistro and Bar.
Woo Mui Chan sent an email to Diana Foo regarding HSBC gold transfer ownership.
Diana Foo issued a statutory demand against Woo Mui Chan for S$36,350.00.
Diana Foo instituted legal proceedings against Woo Mui Chan in MC/MC 13957/2018.
Woo Mui Chan posted a public review on The Law Society of Singapore’s Google page.
Diana Foo and Woo Mui Chan entered into a settlement agreement.
Diana Foo issued another statutory demand against Woo Mui Chan for S$23,691.12.
Diana Foo commenced a second action against Woo Mui Chan in MC/MC 1044/2020 for S$15,000.00.
Woo Mui Chan lodged a written complaint to LSS.
Diana Foo was informed by LSS of the complaint.
Diana Foo issued a letter of demand to Woo Mui Chan regarding Statement 1.
Diana Foo issued a letter of demand to Woo Mui Chan regarding both statements.
Trial began.
Trial continued.
Judgment was reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court found that the statements made by the defendant were defamatory and that the defenses of justification and qualified privilege did not apply.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Justification
      • Qualified privilege
      • Malice
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] 1 SLR(R) 177
      • [2010] 1 SLR 52
      • [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004
      • [2012] 1 SLR 506
  2. Justification
    • Outcome: The court rejected the defendant's plea of justification, finding that the defendant failed to prove the truth of the defamatory statements.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] 1 SLR 52
  3. Qualified Privilege
    • Outcome: The court found that the defense of qualified privilege was defeated by the defendant's malice.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Malice
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004
      • [2012] 1 SLR 506

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Apology
  3. Undertaking

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services
  • Food and Beverage

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd and another and another suitHigh CourtYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 177SingaporeCited for the elements required to establish a prima facie case of defamation.
Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 52SingaporeCited for the definition of defamatory words and their natural and ordinary meaning.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and anotherUnknownYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004SingaporeCited for the definition of publication in defamation cases.
Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appealUnknownYes[2012] 1 SLR 506SingaporeCited for the definition of malice in the context of qualified privilege.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defamation
  • Justification
  • Qualified privilege
  • Malice
  • Illegal deals
  • Professional misconduct
  • Solicitor-client relationship
  • Vulgarities

15.2 Keywords

  • defamation
  • singapore
  • lawyer
  • illegal deals
  • professional misconduct
  • qualified privilege
  • justification

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Defamation95
Legal Profession Act60
Evidence Law50

16. Subjects

  • Defamation
  • Tort Law