Govinda S/O Aramvally Gopalan v Teoh Chooi Sian

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeTan May Tee
Judgment Date30 April 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] SGDC 111
CourtDistrict Court (Singapore)
Hearing Date18 November 2019,20 January 2020
Docket NumberDC Suit No. 594 of 2017
Plaintiff CounselMr R S Bajwa (Bajwa & Co)
Defendant CounselMs Megan Chia and Ms Jacqueline Gwee (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
Subject MatterTort,Defamation,Justification,Qualified privilege,Malice
Published date28 May 2020
District Judge Tan May Tee: Introduction

The Plaintiff is an advocate and solicitor who has been in practice for close to fifty years. The Defendant is a homemaker. She had previously worked as an auditor more than thirty years ago but had given up her profession to take care of her children.

Both the Plaintiff and Defendant are residents of the condominium development called Casa Merah and, as subsidiary proprietors, are members of The Management Corporation Strata Title No. 3534 (“MCST”) pursuant to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap. 30C) (“BMSMA”). At the material time, they were both serving on the 6th Management Council (“MC”) of the MCST. This would refer to the management council of the MCST established after its 6th Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) on 16 April 2016.

The Plaintiff had served from the 4th MC in the capacity of Honorary Secretary while the Defendant began serving as a council member after being elected at the 6th AGM. According to the Defendant, she had decided to step forward for election as she found the maintenance and security of the Casa Merah grounds to be on the decline and she hoped to do her part to improve the estate by participating in the MC1.

The Plaintiff’s claim in this action is that the Defendant had defamed him in an email dated 25 October 2016 (“the Email”) which she had sent to fourteen recipients including the Plaintiff. The recipients were members of the MC and the representatives of the condominium’s managing agent, Melana International Pte Ltd. (“Melana”). The subject of the Email is stated as “6th MC MINUTES”. The full text of the Email pleaded as the “Defamatory Allegations” in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim is set out below:

Dear All, I absolutely agree with Dennis’ and Roger’s comments and disappointment. The way the minutes have been minuted almost every month – with so many discrepancies, about turns and additions taken in from ‘elsewhere’ – are tiring out the council members. Integrity is at issue here. If council members do not pay attention to these details in the minutes and point out these errors, something can become a “council decision” out of the blue when it was in fact never agreed upon by members during the meeting. One good example was the extended mandate. How can one assume that the 6th council will give the extended mandate without knowing head or tail about the kf case? I would never agree to give the extended mandate given the past unsatisfactory conduct of the honorable Secretary and MA, who were not forthcoming to my previous requests for information and viewing of contracts etc. I therefore object to the MoM. By definition, minutes are meant to be a written record of the actual happenings during the meeting. Any additional facts included are fabrications that cannot be allowed. If the Secretary and Chairlady are not up to the task of ensuring that the minutes are accurate, I suggest that they retire and let more suitable people take up this responsibility. Regards, Teoh
Background to the dispute

In 2015, the MCST was embroiled in a litigation with its former managing agent, Knight Frank Estate Management Pte Ltd (“Knight Frank”). Knight Frank had tendered its resignation in 2014 and sued the MCST in the District Court for outstanding payments under its managing agent agreement with the MCST. In turn, the MCST had counterclaimed damages against Knight Frank for various breaches of its contractual obligations. The MCST was represented by Central Chambers Law Corporation, and the Plaintiff had been authorised by the 5th MC to liaise with them for the conduct of the litigation (“KF suit”). He had also been given a signed mandate by the 5th MC to settle the suit. The Plaintiff had deemed the settlement mandate to be a confidential matter which could not be disclosed to the Defendant.

At the MCST’s AGM in April 2016, the Defendant had asked questions regarding the KF suit as the budget to fund the litigation had to be approved by the subsidiary proprietors. She was not given the information she sought. According to the Plaintiff, he had been cautioned that the Defendant was a close friend of Knight Frank’s staff and he was concerned that the confidentiality of the settlement mandate might be compromised2.

After the 6th AGM, the interactions between the parties qua members of the 6th MC continued on a hostile note, as demonstrated in the following email exchanges which were also copied to the other MC members as well as the managing agent: Defendant’s email dated 16 May 2016 to Melana on the topic “Renewal of security contract”3 In this email thread, the Defendant had sent an email to Rickey Choo, Melana’s representative who was also the Condominium Manager, requesting inter alia for information on how the security contract to April Security and Investigation Pte Ltd had been awarded, details of the tender process, if any, and whether staffing of the security guards had been presented to the council for discussion. She had also asked the managing agent to prepare a schedule of all the term contractors with details such as the names of the contractors, dates of the contracts, the contract sums, the identity and number of staff provided for in each contract, where they were deployed and their working hours. The Plaintiff, who was also on the Security Sub-committee, took upon himself to reply to the Defendant’s email. The excerpt reproduced below from his email sent on 19 May 2016 is indicative of his general disposition towards the Defendant:

Dear Teoh, Allow me to reply to this email in my capacity as Hon Sec/Security Sub-Comm in the same order as they appear: …. 4. There were no change of the security staffing for 2012, 2013 and 2014. The contract we used was the same contract that Knight Frank used from 2011.. There was no change of use of Casa Merah. It still remained as a condo and not changed to Service Apartments, etc with the same facilities from TOP until now. Council members all know this and can see for themselves. So what is the need to discuss staffing issues again with them! As to the request for all the other information, most of it can be found in the explanatory notes of the last AGM documents from 39-41. If you want more information please state your reasons for these documents before I direct the MA to provide them. If all members start asking for old documents without reasons the MA will be attending to this at the expense of their work. If you have specific information of any wrong doing by the MA or Council members please say so. Finally for your information, we have extended the April contract until March next year, we can still terminate the contract by giving them only a months notice without any compensation. Thanks and regards Gopalan
The Defendant then responded to the Plaintiff’s email on 21 May 2016, stating inter alia,
I also like to highlight to you as an Honourable Secretary that when council members requested for any information it does not equate to suspicion of any wrong doings. In your email dated 19/5/2016 5.19pm, you denied me the schedule that I asked Rickey to prepare unless I gave you the reasons. You also directed me to obtain the information from the notes to the accounts. This is equivalent to asking a director in a company to refer to the accounts in the annual report which is prepared on a historical basis to manage the affairs of a company. I as council member, requires all the information that was stated in my emails to Rickey in order to discharge my duties diligently under s 61 (1) BMSMA.
Email exchange on the subject “Requisition of Schedule from Managing Agent” The email exchanges continued on the subject “Requisition of Schedule from Managing Agent” in which the Plaintiff had emailed the Defendant on 24 May 2016 at 11.27am as follows:
As to your email, my reply is as follows: Para 2 Since you wish to be a Member of the Sub-Committee, I will ask Rickey to provide you with the same. Para 3 Most Councils of MCST appoint Managing Agents to handle the Administrative as well as the day running of the MCST. Casa Merah is no different. We have delegated this Secretarial duties to Melana (Rickey). His job is to circulate the Minutes and Agenda to Council Members in time. Rickey was unable to do that at the last Council meeting and hence this was not discussed. Besides there was insufficient time to raise this under ‘any other business’. Since you have offered to participate in the tender process in the future with your free time as a retiree, I recall welcoming your offer and look forward to your participation. Para 4 In your case, I have reason to believe that the information/documents you are seeking pertains to issues in an on-going Civil Suit in Court. I stand by my previous answer as I fear this information may be relayed to Knight Frank to the detriment of the MCST. I am duty bound to protect the interest of the MCST above all. Para 5 See paragraphs above. Directors of Companies are governed by The Companies Act. Council members are governed by the BMSMA. So I don’t see how you can rely on the Companies Act to support your point. Para 6 You only became a member of the Council on 16/4/16. It follows that you can only be expected to act honestly and diligently after your appointment and not any time before. So no worries on that score. As far as I can recall, all the contracts were approved and signed by Office bearers/Members of the 5th Council.
The Defendant responded the same day at 10.21pm. The relevant portion is excerpted below:
Para 2 Rickey being the MA has no authority to include me in the sub committee. All appointment should/ must go through the proper process in the council meeting. Para 4 As an educated person, you should know better than to make baseless accusations. The
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT