Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang: Defamation Assessment of Damages
The Singapore High Court heard the assessment of damages for two defamation claims, HC/OC 496/2023 and HC/OC 497/2023, brought by Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan and Vivian Balakrishnan, respectively, against Lee Hsien Yang. The claims arose from a Facebook post made by the defendant. The court, noting the defendant's failure to respond to the claims, awarded $200,000 in general and aggravated damages to each claimant. The court considered factors such as the nature and gravity of the defamation, the standing of the parties, and the extent of publication.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Claimants
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court assesses damages in defamation suits filed by Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan and Vivian Balakrishnan against Lee Hsien Yang, awarding $200,000 to each claimant.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan | Claimant | Individual | Judgment for Claimant | Won | |
| Lee Hsien Yang | Defendant | Individual | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| Vivian Balakrishnan | Claimant | Individual | Judgment for Claimant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The defendant published a Facebook post containing defamatory words about the claimants.
- The claimants are Cabinet Ministers in Singapore.
- The defendant failed to file a Defence or respond to the claims.
- The defendant did not apologise or remove the post until after judgment was entered.
- The Facebook post was widely shared and viewed in Singapore.
- The claimants pleaded that the defamatory words meant they acted corruptly and for personal gain.
5. Formal Citations
- Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang and another matter, Originating Claim No 496 of 2023 (Assessment of Damages No 4 of 2024), [2024] SGHC 136
- Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang and another matter, Originating Claim No 497 of 2023 (Assessment of Damages No 3 of 2024), [2024] SGHC 136
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr Shanmugam became a Member of Parliament | |
| Dr Balakrishnan became a Member of Parliament | |
| Dr Balakrishnan became a Cabinet Minister | |
| Mr Shanmugam became a Cabinet Minister | |
| Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang stated they do not trust Lee Hsien Loong | |
| Defendant published the Facebook post | |
| Correction Direction issued to the defendant | |
| Claimants commenced OC 496 and OC 497 | |
| Claimants filed HC/SUM 2460/2023 and HC/SUM 2459/2023 | |
| Assistant Registrar granted applications to serve sealed copies of OCs and SOCs out of jurisdiction | |
| Claimants filed HC/SUM 2607/2023 and HC/SUM 2608/2023 | |
| Assistant Registrar granted applications for substituted service | |
| Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan effected substituted service of process on the defendant | |
| Defendant published a post confirming he had been served with process | |
| Deadline for defendant to file Notice of Intention | |
| Judgments granted in favour of the claimants with damages to be assessed | |
| Claimants' solicitors served the judgments on the defendant | |
| Defendant published a post about the court order and edited the Post to remove the Offending Words | |
| Court ordered OC 496 and OC 497 to be tried together | |
| Defendant served with dates and time of assessment of damages | |
| Defendant served with dates and time of assessment of damages | |
| Defendant served with dates and time of assessment of damages | |
| Assessment hearing held | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Defamation
- Outcome: The court found the defendant liable for defamation and assessed damages.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 331 | Singapore | Cited for granting judgments in favour of the claimants and restraining the defendant from publishing the Offending Words. |
| Brightex Paints (S) Pte Ltd v Tan Ongg Seng (in his personal capacity and trading as Starlit(S) Trading) and others | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 116 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that facts in the Statement of Claim are taken to be admitted if not specifically traversed by the opposing party. |
| Zulkifli Baharudin v Koh Lam Son | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 369 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that failure to file a Defence means a defendant effectively admits to the facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim. |
| U Myo Nyunt (alias Michael Nyunt) v First Property Holdings Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 816 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a defendant cannot dispute liability at an assessment of damages hearing if a judgment is granted in default of a Notice of Intention. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Xu Yuan Chen and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2022] 3 SLR 924 | Singapore | Cited for the factors a court will consider when assessing damages for defamation. |
| Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 86 | Singapore | Cited for the nature of general damages for 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 nature of general damages for defamation and higher damages awarded to public leaders. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 642 | Singapore | Cited for the most serious types of defamation touching on core attributes of personality. |
| Lee Kuan Yew and another v Tang Liang Hong and others and other actions | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 81 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the more outrageous the defamation, the greater the damages. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian | High Court | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 1128 | Singapore | Cited for the fact that countervailing information does not reduce defamation if it does not originate from the party responsible. |
| 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 the greater the reputation of the person defamed, the greater the damage award. |
| Datuk Harris bin Mohamed Salleh v Abdul Jalil bin Ahmad & anor | Kuala Lumpur Court | Yes | [1984] 1 MLJ 97 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the timing of publication influencing the number of people reached. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Seow Khee Leng | High Court | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 252 | Singapore | Cited as supporting the contention that one of the factors relevant to damages is whether the defamatory statements are likely to be spread quickly by others. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin | High Court | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 709 | Singapore | Cited as supporting the contention that one of the factors relevant to damages is whether the defamatory statements are likely to be spread quickly by others. |
| Koh Sin Chong Freddie v Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 629 | Singapore | Cited for relying on a platform of facts to establish substantial publication of the Offending Words. |
| 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 a defendant is liable for subsequent republications of defamatory material which are the natural and probable result of his act. |
| Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome and another | House of Lords | Yes | [1972] 1 AC 1027 | United Kingdom | Cited to suggest that it is desirable to stop referring to vindicative damages altogether. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Davies Derek Gwyn and others | High Court | Yes | [1989] 2 SLR(R) 544 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of malice in defamation. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Ngerng Yi Ling Roy | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1321 | Singapore | Cited for a summary of precedent cases involving the defamation of political leaders. |
| M Badiuzzaman and others v Salma Islam and others | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 311 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a failure to apologise does not always result in higher damages or aggravated damages. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 552 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the defendant’s knowledge or intention that his defamatory statements would be repeated and republished and that the defamatory statements were so repeated and republished is also relevant to the question of damages |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2014 |
| Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 | Singapore |
| State Courts Act 1970 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Defamation
- Damages
- Facebook post
- Ministers
- Ridout Road
- General damages
- Aggravated damages
- Notice of Intention
- Substituted service
- Public figure
15.2 Keywords
- defamation
- damages
- Singapore
- Minister
- Lee Hsien Yang
- Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan
- Vivian Balakrishnan
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Defamation Law | 95 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Judgments and Orders | 40 |
| Costs | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Defamation
- Assessment of Damages
- Social Media Law