District Judge Ng Tee Tze Allen:
In this action, Mr Paul Chan, the plaintiff, sued Ms Tang Swea Phing, the 1st defendant, and SDCS Holdings Pte Ltd, the 2nd defendant, (collectively, the “defendants”) for defamation. He alleged that the 1st defendant had engaged the 2nd defendant to recover an alleged debt of S$120,000 from him, and that the 2nd defendant had defamed him in the course of doing so. He sought damages to be assessed and a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from further defaming him.
The defendants accepted that the 2nd defendant was engaged to recover the alleged debt for the 1st defendant and that it tried to do so. However, they disagreed that the plaintiff was defamed. They also asserted that the defence of justification applied because the plaintiff did in fact owe the 1st defendant S$120,000. On this basis, the 1st defendant made a counterclaim for S$120,000 against the plaintiff.
Having considered the evidence and the parties’ submissions, I find in favour of the plaintiff. I award damages to the sum of S$10,000 to him. However, I decline to grant the injunction. I also dismiss the 1st defendant’s counterclaim. My reasons are as follows.
Facts
The relationship between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant
The plaintiff is the sole director and majority shareholder of NSC Capital Pte Ltd (“NSC”). He is also the sole director and shareholder of Menon Network Pte Ltd (“Menon Network”). NSC and Menon Network (collectively, the “Companies”) were sister companies which shared the same office premise at 152 Beach Road #28-05 Gateway East Singapore 189721.
The 1st defendant was employed until August 2017. In the course of her work, she managed the accounts of both Companies.
It was clear that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant had a good relationship initially: In his affidavit of evidence in chief (“AEIC”), the plaintiff described the 1st defendant as, amongst other things, “an ideal candidate” to succeed him. During cross-examination, the 1st defendant stated that she treated the plaintiff like her father. Indeed, it was likely for this reason that the 1st defendant extended the loans that form the subject matter of this action. The 1st defendant’s husband’s company, Computercity Systems Private Limited (“Computercity”), also did business with the Companies. It supplied computers and other equipment to the Companies.
The Alleged Debt of S$120,000
A key dispute in this action was whether the plaintiff personally owed the 1st defendant the sum of S$120,000 (the “Alleged Debt”). The Alleged Debt comprised: (a) an alleged loan of S$20,000 (the “S$20k Loan”) and (b) an alleged loan of S$100,000 (the “S$100k Loan”).
The S$20k Loan
The S$20k Loan was made when the Companies were facing cash flow issues in or around October 2016. They were unable to pay the salaries of their employees and this led to the 1st defendant transferring a total of S$18,050 to eight of the Companies’ employees on or around 28 October 2016. The breakdown of the S$18,050 is set out in the table below:
| |
|
|
| S/N | Employee | Salary Transferred |
| 1. | Balvinda Kaur | S$2,560 |
| 2. | Eileen | S$3,200 |
| 3. | Faye | S$2,450 |
| 4. | May Wong Kee Kuan | S$2,280 |
| 5. | He Chu | S$1,760 |
| 6. | Joannah Marie | S$2,200 |
| 7. | Ashley Lim | S$1,600 |
| 8. | Tang Chin Yee | S$2,000 |
| Total | S$18,050 |
The 1st defendant added an additional S$2,000 to the S$18,050. This S$2,000 represented her own October 2016 salary which has not been paid. The plaintiff does not dispute that the 1st defendant was not paid her October 2016 salary.
Even though S$18,050 and S$2,000 adds up to S$20,050, the 1st defendant claimed only S$20,000 from the plaintiff. For this reason, I refer to this as the “S$20k Loan”. The plaintiff’s position is that the S$20k Loan was extended to the Companies, and not to him personally.
The S$100k Loan
The S$100k Loan was made on or around 3 November 2016. On that day, the 1st defendant transferred S$100,000 to NSC’s UOB Account No. XXX. The money was used to pay for the Companies’ office rent. The 1st defendant’s case is that the S$100k Loan was extended to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s case is that the S$100k Loan was extended to the Companies.
The 2nd defendant sought to recover S$120,000 for the 1st defendant
It is common ground that the 1st defendant was not repaid the Alleged Debt and that the 1st defendant engaged the 2nd defendant to recover the same from the plaintiff on 11 March 2019.
It is also common ground that the 2nd defendant made six recovery attempts. The first attempt was made on the day of the 2nd defendant’s engagement itself (“Attempt 1”). On 11 March 2019, the 2nd defendant sent a letter to the Companies’ mailbox. The letter was addressed to the plaintiff. Amongst other things, it demanded payment of the S$120,000 and stated that “[f]ailure to respond … by paying the debt amount as stated within 7 days will require us to utilise one of the enforcement options against you.”
The 2nd defendant did not wait for seven days before utilising its “enforcement options”. One day later on 12 March 2019, the 2nd defendant’s representatives attended at the Companies’ premises to recover the Alleged Debt (“Attempt 2”). This was followed by two further attempts at the plaintiff’s home on 14 March 2019 (“Attempt 3”) and 21 March 2019 (“Attempt 4”).
On 22 March 2019, the plaintiff’s solicitors sent two letters of demand (the “D&N’s letters”). One to the 1st defendant and the other to the 2nd defendant. Broadly, the D&N letters demanded: (a) that the defendants immediately cease and desist from making and/or causing unfounded harassment and/or allegations against the plaintiff and/or his family members and/or the Companies, and (b) for all supporting documents that substantiated the Alleged Debt.
However, this was to no avail. A fifth attempt was made on 28 March 2019 at the office of Her Velvet Vase Pte Ltd where the plaintiff’s wife and daughter worked (“Attempt 5”). A final attempt was made at the plaintiff’s home on 1 April 2019 (“Attempt 6”).
On 9 May 2019, the plaintiff started this action.
Parties’ cases
The plaintiff’s case was that the 2nd defendant had defamed him in Attempts 1-6 and that the 1st defendant was also liable because the 2nd defendant was acting as her agent. It was also his position that the S$20k Loan and S$100k Loan were extended to the Companies and not to him personally. He sought damages of S$60,000 (i.e. S$10,000 for each Attempt), and an injunction to enjoin the defendants from further acts of defamation.
The 1st defendant’s case was that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case of defamation because he failed to prove that any defamatory words were published to third parties. It was also her case that the defence of justification applied because both the S$20k Loan and the S$100k Loan were extended to the plaintiff personally. She made a counterclaim for S$120,000.
The 2nd defendant also took the position that there was no publication of any defamatory words, and that the defence of justification applied. It also submitted that the plaintiff had no basis to sue it because it was in the business of debt recovery and had only proceeded with the debt recovery after being retained by the 1st defendant, that it had proceeded with the debt recovery within the bounds of the law, and that it did not have a statutory duty to verify the debt before undertaking the assignment.
Issues
The following issues arise for determination: Whether the 1st defendant should be liable for the 2nd defendant’s defamatory acts (if any); Whether the 2nd defendant should be liable for defamatory acts (if any) undertaken in the course of its retainer; Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case of defamation for each of the Attempts; Whether the defendants established the defence of justification by proving that 1st defendant had extended the S$20k Loan and/or the S$100k Loan to the plaintiff; What quantum of damages (if any) should be awarded; Whether a final prohibitory injunction should be made; and Whether the 1st defendant’s counterclaim should be allowed in respect of the S$20k Loan and/or the S$100k Loan.
Issue 1: Whether the 1st defendant should be held liable for the 2nd defendant’s defamatory acts (if any)
In my judgment, the 1st defendant should be held liable for the 2nd defendant’s defamatory acts (if any).
It is trite that a principal is liable for the losses caused by his agent’s torts if the wrongful act was specifically authorised. In such cases, the principal has effectively committed the tort himself: Peter Watts, F.M.B Reynolds Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency (19th Ed, 2010) at [8-177] and [8-181]; Ong Han Ling v American International Assurance Co Ltd and others [2018] 5 SLR 54962 at [208] and [210].
In the present case, the plaintiff submitted that the 1st defendant had specifically authorised the 2nd defendant to commit the wrongful acts and as such should be held liable.
The 1st defendant disagreed. She testified that: (a) she did not instruct the 2nd defendant on how to recover the Alleged Debt, (b) she did not know precisely how the 2nd defendant was attempting to recover the Alleged Debt, and (c) she trusted the 2nd defendant to “stick to legal means in getting the debt back” and to act in “the right way”.
I find in favour of the plaintiff. In her retainer with the 2nd defendant of 11 March 2019 (the “retainer”), the 1st defendant authorised the 2nd defendant “to act on [her] behalf to demand S$120,000 … from [the plaintiff]”. To that end, she authorised the 2nd defendant to “visit” the plaintiff “5-8 times a month” even though this may “inconvenience” and “embarrass” him. The relevant clauses...
