Jeevithan s/o Muralidharan v Lee Tong Lin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: James Leong Kiu Yiu
• Judgment Date: 30 September 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 370
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit No. 481 of 2014—RA No. 119 of 2014, RAS 189 of 2014
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 13 October 2014
• Hearing Date: 27 August 2014,13 August 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Dilip Kumar (M/s Gavan Law Practice LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Terence Seah and Ms Noraisha De Silva (M/s Shook Lin & Bok)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Defamation - Striking Out
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 370

District Judge James Leong Kiu Yiu: Introduction

This appeal relates to the defendant’s application under Order 18 r 19 to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim for defamation. The application was originally dismissed by the Deputy Registrar on 8 July 2014 with costs fixed at $2500. I heard the matter on 13 August 2014 and dismissed the Registrar’s Appeal with costs fixed at $1800 on 27 August 2014. The defendant has now appealed against my decision to the High Court.

Material Facts

The plaintiff and the defendant were classmates at James Cook University, Singapore. On 22 March 2013, the defendant published in his Facebook account a photograph of the plaintiff in prison garb with the accompanying caption (reproduced verbatim below) on the right of the photograph:

“ NAME: JEEVE

AGE: 23

CRIME: RAPE

NO. OF OFFENCES: 50

CHARACTERISTICS:

-RIGHT HANDED

-INTEREST WITH MARTIAL ART

-FASCINATION WITH WEAPONS

-FANTASTY ABOUT SEX & VIOLENCE

-KEEPS SOUVENIRS FROM CRIMES

DISCLAIMER!!

THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS ENTIRELY FICTIONAL.THE POSTER IS PURELY FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES = P”

While the plaintiff and the defendant have different versions of how the publication came about and the circumstances that led to its removal, it is clear that the defendant removed the publication from his Facebook page on 25 March 2013. What remains unclear is the extent, if any, to which the publication was shared /disseminated via Facebook by others before and after its removal.

Submissions of Parties

The plaintiff alleges that the photograph and words that depict him as a prisoner and criminal were defamatory, and meant to show he was a criminal and/or someone of shady character and/or loose morals and/or a sexual deviant. The plaintiff further alleges that his reputation has been seriously damaged as a result and that he has suffered distress and embarrassment, and also mental depression and anguish.

It is the defendant’s position that the plaintiff’s claim should be struck out under Order 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court as the publication is not capable of bearing any defamatory meaning. It was also clearly an innocent joke between students and classmates, one that the plaintiff himself had participated in. In this regard, apart from the plaintiff’s two affidavits in support of the application, the plaintiff also obtained affidavits from three of his friends to, inter alia, support the plaintiff’s position that the publication was an extension of a classroom joke/discussion on criminal profiling.

In essence, the defendant argued that the disclaimer in the publication served as an effective “antidote” to neutralise any possible “bane” in the publication as noted by the High Court in Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lim Jian Wei and another [2009] 2 SLR ( R) 1004. Citing a passage from Evans on Defamation in Singapore and Malaysia (LexisNexis, 3rd Ed, 2008) that the publication must be taken as a whole and that “Likewise, words obviously defamatory on their face may not be so because of the circumstances under which they are published, as in words spoken in jest and so understood in that manner”, counsel for the defendant submitted that the publication was not defamatory.

Considering that the plaintiff had taken some time to file the writ of summons and that the letter of demands had initially sought $ 150 000 in damages, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the claim was an attempt to extort money from the defendant that ought not to be allowed.

Law

Subsequent to the hearing on 13 August 2014, counsel for the defendant helpfully did further research and tendered additional authorities vide letter dated 19 August 2014. The two High Court cases of Ng Khoo Kay Benedict and another v Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd [2010] 2 SLR 860 and Zhu Yong Zhen v AIA Singapore...