Maag v Modi: Defamation & Malicious Falsehood Claims, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Amendment of Pleadings
In Maag v Modi [2024] SGHC 311, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Lalit Kumar Modi against the decision to allow Daniel and Gurpreet Gill Maag to amend their statement of claim in a defamation and malicious falsehood action. The Maags' claim arose from social media posts by Modi. The court, presided over by Dedar Singh Gill J, allowed the appeal in part, disallowing some amendments related to publications and damages outside of Singapore, while permitting others related to publications within Singapore.
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
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court addresses defamation and malicious falsehood claims against Lalit Modi, focusing on service out of jurisdiction and pleading amendments.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel Maag | Claimant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Suang Wijaya, Hamza Zafar Malik |
| Gurpreet Gill Maag | Claimant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Suang Wijaya, Hamza Zafar Malik |
| Lalit Kumar Modi | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Abraham Vergis, Hari Veluri, Timothy Hew Zhao Yi |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Dedar Singh Gill | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Hamza Zafar Malik | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Abraham Vergis | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Hari Veluri | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Timothy Hew Zhao Yi | Providence Law Asia LLC |
4. Facts
- Mr. Modi published posts on Twitter and Instagram that the Maags claimed contained malicious falsehoods and defamatory material.
- The Maags filed OC 660 against Mr. Modi for libel and malicious falsehood based on the Litigation Post and Political Hatred Post.
- The Maags sought leave to serve the originating claim and statement of claim on Mr. Modi in the United Kingdom.
- The Maags filed SUM 3888 for leave to amend their statement of claim to plead that the posts were published in India and/or the United Kingdom in addition to Singapore.
- Mr. Modi objected to the amendments, arguing that the Maags should be limited to claiming for injuries arising within Singapore.
5. Formal Citations
- Maag, Daniel and another v Lalit Kumar Modi, Originating Claim No 660 of 2023 (Registrar’s Appeal No 77 of 2024), [2024] SGHC 311
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. Modi published a post on the Twitter Page (the Litigation Post). | |
| Mr. Modi published another post on the Twitter Page (the Political Hatred Post). | |
| The Maags filed OC 660 against Mr. Modi. | |
| The Maags sought leave to serve the originating claim and statement of claim in OC 660 on Mr. Modi in the United Kingdom. | |
| The Maags filed SUM 3888 for leave to amend their statement of claim. | |
| Hearing of RA 77. | |
| The Maags were allowed to furnish a revised draft statement of claim for the purposes of RA 77. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court allowed some amendments and disallowed others, based on whether they introduced claims with a sufficient nexus to Singapore.
- Category: Procedural
- Service Out of Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court considered whether the claims had a sufficient nexus to Singapore to justify service out of jurisdiction.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Defamation
- Outcome: The court considered the principles of defamation, including the separate tort thesis and the location of reputational damage.
- Category: Substantive
- Malicious Falsehood
- Outcome: The court considered the elements of malicious falsehood and whether reputational harm is recoverable under this tort.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for defamation
- Damages for malicious falsehood
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
- Malicious Falsehood
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Defamation Law
11. Industries
- Social Media
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claimant seeking leave to serve a claim out of jurisdiction should be limited to claiming injuries arising within the home jurisdiction. |
| Berezovsky v Michaels | Unknown | Yes | [2000] 1 WLR 1004 | England | Cited for the proposition that each instance of publication gives rise to a separate tort. |
| FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Brownlie (as dependant and executrix of Sir Ian Brownlie CBE QC) | Supreme Court | Yes | [2021] 3 WLR 1011 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the interpretation of jurisdictional gateways for service out of jurisdiction. |
| Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board v Fong Chak Kwan | Unknown | Yes | [2022] 5 HKC 426 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the interpretation of jurisdictional gateways for service out of jurisdiction. |
| IM Skaugen SE and another v MAN Diesel & Turbo SE and another | Singapore High Court (Registrar's Appeal) | Yes | [2016] SGHCR 6 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of provisions under the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) regarding claiming damage suffered in Singapore. |
| IM Skaugen SE and another v MAN Diesel & Turbo SE and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 123 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of provisions under the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) regarding claiming damage suffered in Singapore. |
| Toomey v Mirror Newspapers Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [1985] 1 NSWLR 173 | Australia | Cited regarding the possibility of bringing defamation claims for publication made overseas and damage sustained overseas. |
| David Syme & Co Ltd v Grey | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | (1992) 115 ALR 247 | Australia | Cited as a case that appeared to depart from the position in Toomey, based on the specific wording of an Australian statute. |
| Clarke (t/a Elumina Iberica UK) v Bain | English High Court | Yes | [2008] EWHC 2636 (QB) | England | Cited regarding the unsatisfactory nature of pursuing foreign publication under the claim for damages for a local publication. |
| Wang Piao v Lee Wee Ching | Unknown | Yes | [2024] 4 SLR 540 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step analytical framework for the amendment of pleadings. |
| MAN Diesel & Turbo SE v IM Skaugen SE | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 327 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that each claim had to be considered separately for the purposes of assessing whether the claims fulfilled the jurisdictional gateways under O 11 of the ROC 2014. |
| Banks v Cadwalladr | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 3 WLR 167 | England | Cited for upholding the separate tort thesis. |
| Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto Sia | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 639 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the tort of malicious falsehood is of an entirely different character from an action for defamation. |
| Australand Holdings Ltd v Transparency and Accountability Council Inc | New South Wales Supreme Court | Yes | [2008] NSWSC 669 | Australia | Cited for the principle that there does not seem to be any relevant distinction between the concept of publication for the purpose of defamation and for the purpose of injurious falsehood. |
| TWG Tea Co Pte Ltd v Murjani Manoj Mohan | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 366 | Singapore | Cited for referring to principles relating to the concept of publication under the law of defamation, in the context of a claim for malicious falsehood. |
| Ruta v Department for Work and Pensions | English High Court | Yes | [2022] EWHC 1535 (QB) | England | Cited for the principle that each publication is a separate cause of action in libel or malicious falsehood. |
| Rafiq v New Zealand Customs Service | New Zealand High Court | Yes | [2022] NZHC 1756 | New Zealand | Cited for affirming the separate tort thesis in the context of the internet and social media. |
| Sellman v Slater | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 2 NZLR 218 | New Zealand | Cited for affirming the separate tort thesis in the context of the internet and social media. |
| Jameel (Mohammed) and another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl | House of Lords | Yes | [2006] 3 WLR 642 | England | Cited regarding whether a trading company could recover general damages for libel without pleading that the relevant publication caused it special damage. |
| Qingdao Bohai Construction Group Co, Ltd and others v Goh Teck Beng and another | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 977 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that damage to reputation is done in the place where the material is published. |
| Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick | High Court of Australia | Yes | (2002) 210 CLR 575 | Australia | Cited for the principle that defamation is to be located at the place where the damage to reputation occurs. |
| Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 46 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a defendant who is liable for the original publication of a defamatory statement is also liable for all subsequent republications which are the natural and probable consequence of his act. |
| Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person (“CHEFPIERRE”) | Unknown | Yes | [2023] 3 SLR 1191 | Singapore | Cited for the intention in effecting a change to the regime of service out of jurisdiction was to simplify matters. |
| Cheong Jun Yoong v Three Arrows Capital Ltd and others | Unknown | Yes | [2024] 4 SLR 907 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claimant need only show a good arguable case with respect to one of those factors to establish a sufficient nexus to Singapore. |
| Three Arrows Capital Ltd and others v Cheong Jun Yoong | Appellate Division of the High Court | Yes | [2024] 1 SLR 419 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claimant need only show a good arguable case with respect to one of those factors to establish a sufficient nexus to Singapore. |
| The “Bunga Melati 5” | Unknown | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a “plainly or obviously unsustainable” action. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another | Unknown | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 1018 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a pleading may be struck out on the basis that it is in the interests of justice to do so. |
| Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 797 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court will not normally depart from practice directions unless there is good reason for doing so. |
| Niche Products Ltd v Macdermid Offshore Solutions LLC | Unknown | Yes | [2013] EWHC 3540 (IPEC) | England | Cited for the principle that particulars must be contained in the Revised Statement of Claim. |
| Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and others v Nurdian Cuaca and others | Unknown | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 117 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of, or defects in, particulars in pleadings, can be a basis for striking out when the error is major and cannot be made good by an amendment providing those particulars. |
| George v Cannell and another | Unknown | Yes | [2024] 3 WLR 153 | England | Cited for the principle that damages for injury to reputation cannot be recovered in an action for malicious falsehood. |
| Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 53 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the deficiency in a pleading can be cured by an amendment, the court will generally prefer to allow an amendment rather than take the drastic course of striking it out. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Defamation Act 1957 | Singapore |
| Defamation Act 2013 | United Kingdom |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Service out of jurisdiction
- Amendment of pleadings
- Separate tort thesis
- Nexus to Singapore
- Forum conveniens
- Reputational damage
- Pecuniary damage
- Malicious falsehood
- Defamation
- Publication
- Rules of Court
- Statement of claim
15.2 Keywords
- defamation
- malicious falsehood
- service out of jurisdiction
- amendment of pleadings
- Singapore
- Rules of Court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Defamation Law
- Conflict of Laws
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort
- Defamation
- Malicious Falsehood
- Conflict of Laws