Atu v Aty

• Judgment Date: 16 July 2015
• Date: 16 July 2015
• Docket Number: Suit No 779 of 2014
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

ATU and others

Plaintiff

and

ATY

Defendant

[2015] SGHC 184

Lee Seiu Kin J

Suit No 779 of 2014

High Court

Tort—Defamation—Damages—Assessment of damages—Defendant alleging that plaintiffs participated in sexual abuse of children under their care—Principles of assessment—Quantification of damages

Tort—Defamation—Damages—Assessment of damages—Defendant communicating defamatory allegations to media outlets which republished them—Whether defendant should be held liable for damage flowing from such republication

Tort—Defamation—Damages—Assessment of damages—First plaintiff being corporate entity—Whether corporate plaintiff entitled to aggravated damages

The first plaintiff was a private, non-profit international school that served, in the main, the expatriate community in Jakarta. The second plaintiff was the principal of one of the campuses for elementary students (‘the School’). The thirdplaintiff was a school administrator while the fourth plaintiff was a teacher's aide. The defendant was the mother of B who was a student of the School.

The parents of C, another student at the School, complained that their son was sexually assaulted by people in blue uniforms. Subsequently the defendant claimed that B had also been sexually assaulted. The defendant made allegations specifically directed against the plaintiffs, and circulated these allegations to parents of other students at the School as well as media outlets which republished them.

In essence, the defendant alleged that: (a) the first plaintiff had attempted to cover up the purported sexual abuse that allegedly occurred on its premises, (b) the second plaintiff had actively participated in the sexual abuse by taking the children to places where they could be sexually abused and recording the incidents with her camera, and (c) the third and fourth plaintiffs had sexually abused children under their care.

The plaintiffs commenced this suit, claiming that the defendant's allegations were defamatory in nature. The defendant did not enter appearance and default judgment was entered against her, with damages to be assessed.

Held, allowing the claims in part:

(1) An award for general damages sought to vindicate the plaintiff's reputation as well as repair the injury to the plaintiff's feelings and reputation. As a company could not be injured in its feelings, it could only recover damages appropriate to remedy the harm to its reputation: at [25] to [28] .

(2) In assessing damages, the court took into account the nature and gravity of the defamatory statement, the conduct, position and standing of the plaintiff and the defendant, the mode and extent of publication, and aggravating factors. The court was also guided by past awards given by local courts in comparable cases:at [29] to [31] , [48] and [49] .

(3) The defendant's accusations were of a particularly grave nature. Not only did those accusations suggest sexual perversion on the part of the plaintiffs, they pointed to a systematic abuse of the trust reposed in educational institutions and individuals responsible for the learning and general well-being of the young children under their charge: at [33] .

(4) The first to third plaintiffs were of rather high standing in the international school community. Notably, the second and third plaintiffs were experienced educators who have had illustrious careers in the field. However, the fourth plaintiff did not enjoy the same standing as the second and thirdplaintiffs: at [34] .

(5) As for the extent of circulation, not only were the defendant's allegations circulated via e-mail to the parents of numerous students enrolled in the School, there was prima facie evidence to show that the defendant had communicated her allegations to media outlets, which republished them. The defendant was held liable for the damage that flowed from the republication of her allegations because she had communicated those statements to the press with the full appreciation and intention that what she said would be repeated in whole or in part: at [35] to [37] , and [41] .

(6) The defendant's allegations had a substantial impact on the first plaintiff's business reputation. As for the second to fourth plaintiffs, while the allegations were undoubtedly serious attacks on their character and integrity, none of them enjoyed a reputation so formidable as to justify an award at the higher end of the spectrum: at [46] and [47] .

(7) An award for aggravated damages would be appropriate as the defendant had acted maliciously by being reckless as to the truth of her allegations. Nevertheless, the plaintiff, as a corporate entity, was not entitled to its claim for aggravated damages. Although it had been held in Messenger Newspapers Group Ltdv National Graphical Association[1984] 1 All ER 293 that a company could be awarded aggravated damages even though it could not suffer injury to feelings, that decision was overruled by the English Court of Appeal in Eaton Mansions (Westminster) Ltd v Stinger Compania de Inversion SA[2014] HLR 4: at [56] , [59] and [61] .

(8) The plaintiffs failed in their claim for special damages. The first plaintiff failed to prove that the shortfall in enrolment was wholly caused by the defendant's allegations. The second to fourth plaintiffs failed to plead and prove actual pecuniary losses that they had suffered: at [72] and [73] .

A Balakrishnan v Nirumalan K Pillay [1999] 2 SLR (R) 462; [1999] 3 SLR 22 (refd)

Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor [2001] 1 SLR (R) 86; [2001] 1 SLR 505 (refd)

Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd [2010] 3 SLR 110 (refd)

Chan Cheng Wah Bernard v Koh Sin Chong Freddie [2012] 1 SLR 506 (refd)

Collins Stewart Ltd v The Financial Times Ltd [2006] EMLR 5 (refd)

Eaton Mansions (Westminster) Ltd v Stinger Compania de Inversion SA [2014] HLR 4 (folld)

Ei-Nets Ltd v Yeo Nai Meng [2004] 1 SLR (R) 153; [2004] 1 SLR 153 (refd)

Gleaner Co Ltd, The v Abrahams [2004] 1 AC 628 (refd)

Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan [2005] 1 SLR (R) 573; [2005] 1 SLR 573 (refd)

Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin [1997] 3 SLR (R) 46; [1998] 1 SLR 547 (refd)

Golden Season Pte Ltd v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd [2015] 2 SLR 751 (refd)

Koh Sin Chong Freddie v Chan Cheng Wah Bernard [2013] 4 SLR 629 (refd)

Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party [2009] 1 SLR (R) 642; [2009] 1 SLR 642 (refd)

Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei [2010] 4 SLR 357 (refd)

Lonrho plc v Fayed (No 5) [1993] 1 WLR 1489 (refd)

Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto Sia [2014] 1 SLR 639 (refd)

Mc Carey v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1965] 2 QB 86 (refd)

Mc Manus v Beckham [2002] 1 WLR 2982 (refd)

Messenger Newspapers Group Ltd v National Graphical Association [1984] 1 All ER 293 (refd)

Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David [2005] 3 SLR (R) 608; [2005] 3 SLR 608 (refd)

Oriental Daily Publisher Ltd v Ming Pao Holdings Ltd [2013] EMLR 7 (refd)

Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd [1994] QB 670 (refd)

Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 QB 524 (refd)

Rook v Fairrie [1941] 1 KB 507 (refd)

Rubber Improvement Ltd v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 (refd)

Slipper v British Broadcasting Corporation [1991] 1 QB 283 (refd)

Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew [1997] 3 SLR (R) 576; [1998] 1 SLR 97 (refd)

TJ System (S) Pte Ltd v Ngow Kheong Shen (No 2) [2003] SGHC 217 (refd)

Oaths and Declarations Act (Cap 211, 2001 Rev Ed)

Khwaja Imran Hamid, Tham Lijing and Lau Yudon (Tan Rajah & Cheah) for theplaintiffs

Defendant absent

.

Judgment reserved.

Lee Seiu Kin J

Introduction

1 This is a defamation action arising out of the alleged sexual abuse of children by staff in an international school in Jakarta, Indonesia. The matter came before me for damages to be assessed after judgment in default of appearance was entered against the defendant.

Facts

The parties to the dispute

2 [ATU] (‘ATU’), the first plaintiff, is a private, non-profit international school that serves, in the main, the expatriate community in Jakarta. The school has three campuses: two for elementary students, and another for junior high and high school students in Cilandak. [ATV] (‘ATV’), the second plaintiff, is the principal of one of the campuses for elementary students (‘the Campus’). ATW, the third plaintiff, was a school administrator while ATX, the fourth plaintiff, was a teacher's aide.

3 The defendant is the mother of [B] (‘B’), who was a student of the Campus.

The background to the dispute

4 As the defendant did not participate in the suit, the facts set out below are all obtained from the affidavits of the plaintiffs. They disclose as follows.

5 Sometime in March 2014, the parents of [C] (‘C’) complained that their son was assaulted by people in blue uniforms. On 24 March 2014, C's parents lodged a police report. On 3 April 2014, the police arrested three cleaners employed by a cleaning company engaged by ATU.

6 On 14 April 2014, C's mother called for a press conference at which she alleged that C had been sexually assaulted by cleaners working at ATU. The press conference appeared on television and other media. At the same time, C's mother also called for a parents' meeting to be held on 15 April 2014. At that meeting, the defendant claimed that B was the victim of an attempted assault but had managed to get away in time. After the defendant's allegation at the parents' meeting of 15 April 2014, ATU engaged (on 16 April 2014) an expert in the area of clinical social work and child counselling to interview B to find out what happened.

7 On 25 April 2014, the defendant and her husband met with representatives of ATU as well as a representative from the Spanish embassy. At that meeting, the defendant and her husband repeated their allegation that B was the victim of an attempted assault and further alleged that B had witnessed C being abused. They claimed that the attackers were the fourth plaintiff and a...