Hanis Saini Hussey v Integrated Information Pte Ltd (Lim Soo Boon t/a Tiffany Promotions, Third Party)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Joon Seng J
• Judgment Date: 30 June 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 219
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 1998
• Published date: 25 February 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lawrence Lee Mun Kong with Sandy Foo (David Chong & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Wilfred Goh Boon Cheong (Wilfred Goh & Partners)
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 219

Judgment:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

1 This is a claim by Hanis Saini Hussey ["the Plaintiff"] for damages for defamation and infringement of copyright. The action arose out of the publication in the Singapore Yellow Pages July 1996 Buying Guide ["the Buying Guide"] of a print of the Plaintiff or a material reproduction thereof ["the print"] in an advertisement by Lim Soo Boon ["the Defendant"] relating to a social escort agency known as Tiffany Promotions [‘the advertisement’]. The publication carried a caption reading:

" Charming & Elegant Ladies in Multi-Racial … Chinese, Malays, Eurasians, Indians, Others. "

2 At the conclusion of the hearing I found for the Plaintiff. I awarded her $30,000 for damages for defamation and costs. On the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for infringement of copyright in the print, I ordered that there be an enquiry before the Registrar with costs reserved to the Registrar. The Defendant has appealed to the Court of Appeal. I now give my reasons.

The Facts

3 The Plaintiff is a married woman, aged 30, with three children. She is a very successful model. She was the first Singaporean model to achieve international success in the modelling industry. She was modelling for twelve to 13 years from 1983 to 1995. Of these, five years, from 1983 to 1988, were spent in Paris where she lived and worked. Her success as a model and therefore a celebrity is evidenced by her numerous appearances in top international fashion magazines, such as Vogue, Bazaar, and Marie Claire. She even appeared on the front cover and the index page of the Time magazine of 20 January 1997 issue. In Singapore, she appeared in the Straits Times, Her World, Go magazine and Female magazine, and others.

4 The Defendant is the sole proprietress of Tiffany Promotions.

5 In or about 1992 the Plaintiff agreed to assist gratuitously the society known as Action for Aids in its campaign to promote Aids awareness. For this purpose an advertising agency, Saatchi & Saatchi Advertising Pte Ltd, and a photographer, Charles Liddall, were commissioned. They took photographs of the Plaintiff and created the print.

6 The print shows the Plaintiff wearing a tight fitting black rubber cheongsam. It was widely used by the Action for Aids for its posters and postcards to promote the use of condoms besides stimulating Aids awareness. It also appeared in the newspapers and magazines in Singapore since 1992 for similar purposes. The print won many advertising awards, locally and internationally, namely:

(a) Five awards in the Asian Advertising Awards (1992);

(b) One award in the Times Asia Pacific Awards (1993);

(c) Three awards in the Creative Circle Awards Gong Show (1993);

(d) Three awards in the Australian Award (1993);

(e) One award in the International Advertising Festival of New York (1992); and

(f) One award in the London International Advertising Awards (1993)

7 In or about July 1996, the Plaintiff was working for Gary Player’s Golf Academy in Singapore. She was looking for a receptionist for the academy. She flipped through the Buying Guide, the section starting with "E" for "Employment" and came across the advertisement using the print. Shortly thereafter she received calls from friends teasing her about her "new line of work". But there must have been others who thought that the Plaintiff was either advertising for the Defendant’s social escort agency and or was herself in some way connected with it. An example was the Plaintiff’s parents who called her and demanded to know how she was involved with the agency.

8 On 6 August 1996, there appeared in the New Paper excerpts of an interview by its reporter, Rachel Tan, with the Defendant, the contents of which could only aggravate the damages. This was what the Defendant was reported to have said:

" [Referring to the print] ‘Who’s Hanis? Ours is an ink painting of a Chinese girl’. At first, she said a colleague commissioned the ink painting in China or Malaysia from a ‘cheap artist’. Later, she said it was done by a friend of the manager of Tiffany’s ‘slimming and cosmetic business’. Miss Lim added: ‘No one has said the girl (in our ad) looks like Hanis’. ‘But many have said she looks like one of our employees’. She claimed that the Yellow Pages ‘insist we do not use any ‘real’ people to model our ads’. ‘The face (in our ad) was dreamt up,’ she added. Miss Lim, who at times claimed to be the receptionist or the assistant manger, insisted that she had no idea who Hanis was. But, when pressed, she said she thought Hanis was a former model now into her 40s. "

9 Cross-examined on her interview with Rachel Tan, referred to as PW 1, the Defendant did not deny what she was reported to have said and which was admittedly untrue:

" Q: On your telephone with Rachel Tan, PW 1, did you receive a phone call from her?

A: I spoke to her over the telephone.

…

Q: You said that PW 1 was interested in fishing juicy story about social escort agencies?

A: I thought it was none of her business. So I shouted at her. I said a lot of things. I felt it was none of her business.

Q: Her questions on social escort agencies, did they come up before the Yellow Pages ad was referred to?

A: She started by accusing me of using someone’s photo for my agency’s ad. That’s how I felt. I felt I am a victim.

Q: When the shouting began?

A: I shouted at her when she accused me of using someone’s photo for the ad.

Q: Did you tell PW 1 that your colleague commissioned the drawing for the Yellow Pages?

A: When she did not believe what I said, so I just told her things that were not true. "

10 On 14 August 1996, the Plaintiff obtained an assignment from Saatchi & Saatchi Advertising Pte Ltd and Charles Liddall of their copyright, if any, in the print. On 16 August 1996, she obtained a similar assignment from the society, Action for Aids.

11 On 28 August 1996 David Chong & Co acting for the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendant’s firm as follows:

" Tiffany Promotions

10 Anson Road

#05-16 International Plaza

Singapore 079903

Dear Sirs

DEFAMATION & COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

We have been consulted by Ms Hanis Saini Hussey in relation to your advertisement at page 464 of the Singapore Yellow Pages July 1996 Buying Guide under the heading of "Escort Service" (the "Advertisement").

TAKE NOTICE that the pictorial representation in the Advertisement is obviously of our client and amounts to a very serious libel wholly without substance.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the pictorial representation is an infringement of copyright of a print of our client (the "Print") which has been circulated widely and which Saatchi & Saatchi Advertising Pte Ltd has won awards both locally and internationally. Our client has the copyright in the Print. To avoid any doubts in the matter, you are hereby notified that Action for Aids (who requested the Print to be done) Saatchi & Saatchi Advertising Pte Ltd (who had the Print done) and the photographer Charles Liddall have absolutely assigned to our client (by way of deeds of assignment) all vested, contingent and future rights of copyright and all accrued rights of action (including any rights of action they may have against any person in connection with the Advertisement) and all other rights of whatever nature in and to the Print to which they are now or may at any time be entitled by virtue of any laws in Singapore and all countries.

Further having regard to our client’s position as an international model, the gravity of the defamation, the wide circulation of the Buying Guide and your Ms Lim’s statements to the New Paper, our client is clearly entitled to substantial compensation as well as an apology.

We are instructed to demand the following:-

(1) a clear and unqualified apology and retraction for publication in a conspicuous position in a quarter page of the Straits Times within 10 days from the date hereof in terms of the enclosure annexed herewith;

(2) a deletion of the pictorial representation of our client from all further distribution of the Singapore Yellow Pages July 1996 Buying Guide;

(3) an undertaking not to continue the publication of the Advertisement with the pictorial representation of our client;

(4) you are to submit your proposals as to the amount of compensation; and

(5) an indemnity in respect of the legal costs incurred by our client.

Failing a satisfactory reply within the next 7 days, we have instructions to commence proceedings without further reference. Our client reserves all her rights.

Yours faithfully

Sgd

LAWRENCE LEE

DAVID CHONG & CO

enc

APOLOGY

In the Singapore Yellow Pages July 1996 Buying Guide there appeared a pictorial representation of Ms Hanis Saini Hussey in the advertisement by Tiffany Promotions under the heading "Escort Service". We confirm that there is no foundation to Ms Hanis Saini Hussey’s association with Tiffany Promotions or to escorts generally. No such suggestion was ever intended.

We greatly regret the distress and embarrassment caused by the Advertisement and retract all unfounded allegations and innuendoes.

Tiffany Promotions "

12 On 24 September 1996 the Defendant through her solicitors, Rodyk & Davidson, replied:

" M/s David Chong & Co

65 Chulia Street

OCBC Centre

#31-00 East Lobby

Singapore 049513

Dear Sirs

DEFAMATION & COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

…

With regard to your letter dated 28 August 1996, we have taken...