Tang Swea Phing v Chan Tam Hoi: Defamation, Agency, and Debt Recovery

Ms. Tang Swea Phing appealed against the district court's decision finding her liable for defamation against Mr. Chan Tam Hoi @ Paul Chan, related to debt recovery efforts by SDCS Holdings Pte Ltd. Mr. Chan cross-appealed on the quantum of damages. The High Court upheld the finding of liability for defamation and the dismissal of Ms. Tang's counterclaim for $120,000 but substituted the damages award of $10,000 with nominal damages of $1. The court found Ms. Tang liable for the actions of her agent, SDCS, in their debt recovery attempts. Ms. Tang's appeal was allowed in part and dismissed in part, while Mr. Chan's appeal was dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

DCA 22 allowed in part and dismissed in part, DCA 23 dismissed in its entirety.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Cross appeals in a defamation claim related to debt recovery efforts. The court upheld liability but substituted substantial damages with nominal damages.

1.7 Decision Date

28 June 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tang Swea Phing	Appellant, Respondent in Counterclaim, Defendant	Individual	Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part	Partial	Lim Tean of Carson Law Chambers
Chan Tam Hoi @ Paul Chan	Respondent, Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim, Appellant	Individual	Appeal dismissed in its entirety	Lost	Wendell Wong of Drew & Napier LLC Faith Hwang of Drew & Napier LLC
SDCS Holdings Pte Ltd	Defendant, Respondent	Corporation	No appeal filed	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Pang Khang Chau	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lim Tean	Carson Law Chambers
Wendell Wong	Drew & Napier LLC
Faith Hwang	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

Ms. Tang engaged SDCS to recover $120,000 from Mr. Chan.
SDCS made multiple attempts to recover the debt, including sending letters of demand.
Mr. Chan claimed the debt was owed by the companies, not him personally.
The District Court found Ms. Tang liable for defamation and awarded damages of $10,000.
Ms. Tang appealed the finding of liability and the dismissal of her counterclaim.
Mr. Chan appealed the quantum of damages awarded.
The High Court upheld the finding of liability but reduced the damages to $1.

5. Formal Citations

Tang Swea Phing v Chan Tam Hoi (alias Paul Chan) and another appeal, District Court Appeals Nos 22 and 23 of 2022, [2024] SGHC 167

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2016-10-01	Ms Tang extended the October 2016 loan.
2016-11-03	Ms Tang extended the November 2016 loan.
2017-08-01	Ms Tang's employment was terminated.
2019-03-11	Ms Tang engaged SDCS's services to recover the Alleged Debt.
2019-03-11	SDCS made the First Attempt to recover the Alleged Debt.
2019-03-12	SDCS made the Second Attempt to recover the Alleged Debt.
2019-03-14	SDCS made the Third Attempt to recover the Alleged Debt.
2019-03-21	SDCS made the Fourth Attempt to recover the Alleged Debt.
2019-03-22	Mr Chan's solicitors sent D&N Letters to SDCS and Ms Tang.
2019-03-28	SDCS made the Fifth Attempt to recover the Alleged Debt.
2019-04-01	SDCS made the Sixth Attempt to recover the Alleged Debt.
2019-01-01	District Court Suit No 1387 of 2019 filed.
2022-08-31	District Court issued judgment.
2022-10-31	Hearing date.
2022-11-25	Hearing date.
2023-07-24	Hearing date.
2024-01-04	Hearing date.
2024-01-31	Hearing date.
2024-02-01	Hearing date.
2024-06-29	Judgment Date.

7. Legal Issues

Defamation
- Outcome: The court upheld the finding of liability for defamation but substituted the damages award of $10,000 with nominal damages of $1.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Publication of defamatory statements
  - Justification
  - Quantum of damages
- Related Cases:
  - [2022] SGDC 95
  - [1993] SGHC 23
  - [2010] 4 SLR 357
  - [2001] 1 SLR(R) 86
  - [2002] 1 WLR 3024
  - (1882) 8 QBD 491
  - [2009] 1 SLR(R) 642
  - [2001] 1 WLR 576
  - [1988] 1 WLR 116
Agency
- Outcome: The court held that Ms. Tang was liable for the defamatory statements made by SDCS, as SDCS was acting as her agent within the scope of its authority.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Principal's liability for agent's actions
  - Scope of authority
- Related Cases:
  - (1931) 46 CLR 41
Debt
- Outcome: The court found that the loans were extended to the companies, not to Mr. Chan personally, and therefore the defence of justification failed.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Personal liability for debt
  - Justification for defamation

8. Remedies Sought

Damages
Injunction
Counterclaim for $120,000

9. Cause of Actions

Defamation
Breach of Contract (Counterclaim)

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Debt Recovery
Defamation Law

11. Industries

Debt Collection

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Chan Tam Hoi @ Paul Chan v Tang Swea Phing and another	District Court	Yes	[2022] SGDC 95	Singapore	Refers to the District Judge’s judgment in District Court Suit No 1387 of 2019, against which the appeals were made.
Koh Kok Cheng v Vernes Asia Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1993] SGHC 23	Singapore	Cited for the principle that statements indicating a person is unable or unwilling to pay debts are defamatory.
Ong Han Ling and another v American International Assurance Co Ltd and others	Singapore Law Reports	Yes	[2018] 5 SLR 549	Singapore	Cited to distinguish between vicarious liability in employment relationships and liability based on agency principles.
Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Producers and Citizens Co-operative Assurance Company of Australian Ltd	High Court	Yes	(1931) 46 CLR 41	Australia	Cited as authority for the proposition that a principal may be liable for defamatory statements made by an agent within the scope of their authority, even if not an employee.
Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore Ltd	Singapore Law Reports (Reissue)	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101	Singapore	Cited regarding the role of an appellate court in reviewing findings of fact.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal	Singapore Law Reports	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 357	Singapore	Cited for the relevant factors that the court may consider in determining the quantum of damages in defamation cases.
Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor	Singapore Law Reports (Reissue)	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 86	Singapore	Cited for the purposes of general damages in defamation cases.
Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd	UK House of Lords	Yes	[2002] 1 WLR 3024	United Kingdom	Cited as a key authority for the proposition that a claimant's reputation may be so undeserving of protection that they are entitled only to nominal damages.
Scott v Sampson	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	(1882) 8 QBD 491	United Kingdom	Cited for the rule that only evidence of general bad reputation is admissible in mitigation of damages, not evidence of particular acts of misconduct.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit	Singapore Law Reports (Reissue)	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 642	Singapore	Cited for explaining the rule in Scott v Sampson and its exceptions.
Burstein v Times Newspaper Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 WLR 576	United Kingdom	Cited for the exception to the rule in Scott v Sampson regarding evidence of particular facts directly relevant to the contextual background.
Pamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1988] 1 WLR 116	United Kingdom	Cited for the exception to the rule in Scott v Sampson regarding evidence relied on in support of a substantive defence.
Marathon Asset Management LLP v Seddon	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2017] EWHC 479	England and Wales	Cited regarding costs allocation.

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
Agency
Debt recovery
Letter of demand
Justification
Nominal damages
Retainer
Scope of authority
Vicarious liability

15.2 Keywords

defamation
agency
debt recovery
Singapore
High Court
appeal
damages
nominal damages

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Defamation Law	95
Agency Law	70
Commercial Disputes	60
Contractual terms	40
Costs	30

16. Subjects

Defamation
Agency Law
Debt Recovery
Tort Law