Chan Boon Siang and others v Jasmin Nisban

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 09 October 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGHC 249
• Citation: [2017] SGHC 249
• Date: 09 October 2017
• Subject Matter: Striking out,Civil procedure
• Defendant Counsel: Lau Kok Keng, Chia T-Chien and Quek Yi Liang Daniel (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)
• Published date: 13 October 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wong Tjen Wee, Michelle Lee and Kong Xie Shern (Wong & Leow LLC)
• Hearing Date: 25 September 2017
• Docket Number: HC/RAS No 18 of 2017 (DC Suit No 556 of 2016)

Choo Han Teck J:

The plaintiff is the treasurer in the Executive Committee of the Singapore Chess Federation (“SCF”). He is suing 39 members of the SCF for libel. The plaintiff alleges that the libel is found in a letter of requisition for an extraordinary general meeting (“EOGM”) signed by the signatories. The defendant sent the requisition to the Executive Committee to seek a vote of no confidence in the president of the SCF as well as the members of the Executive Committee. The letter of requisition is dated 6 January 2016.

The reasons for the request are found in an undated letter attached as part of the letter of requisition. This undated letter referred to the resignation of Miss Anjela Khegay (“Anjela”), who was employed by SCF as a trainer from January 2014 and resigned on 31 August 2015.

The plaintiff’s case is that the attached letter is defamatory because it claimed that Anjela resigned because of an incident which took place on 30 August 2015 in the SCF’s office, involving “two Council members” and “sexual misconduct in the premises of SCF”. The letter goes on to say that two vice-presidents of the SCF had been asked to interview “Anjela and the two Council members implicated (Tony Tan and Nisban Jasmin [the plaintiff])”.

All 39 defendants are part of the group of 51 signatories to the letter requesting an EOGM, but not all 51 had been named as defendants. 15 defendants are not involved because they are separately represented and are not parties to the application to strike out and this appeal. The other 24 defendants applied to strike out the plaintiff’s suit under Order 18 r 19(1)(a) and (d) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed). That order provides as follows —

19.—(1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that —

(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be;

…

(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court,

and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.

The application was struck out by a deputy registrar of the State Courts. The plaintiff appealed to District Judge David Lim who allowed his appeal and restored the action. The defendants then appealed before me against District Judge Lim’s order.

Mr Wong Tjen Wee...