John Robertson Gillies v Suresh Balan (also known as Sureash Balan)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chiah Kok Khun
• Judgment Date: 08 December 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGDC 324
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No. 2470 of 2015
• Published date: 29 December 2017
• Year: 2017
• Hearing Date: 03 July 2017,02 May 2017,12 April 2017,11 April 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Eugene Thuraisingam with Mr Suang Wijaya (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Shankar A.S with Ms Nicole Cheah and Ms Lim Min (Straits Law Practice LLC)
• Subject Matter: Tort - defamation - publication,Tort - defamation - defamatory statements,Tort - defamation - qualified privilege,Tort - defamation - damages
• Citation: [2017] SGDC 324

District Judge Chiah Kok Khun:

INTRODUCTION

This defamation case stems from a neighbours’ quarrel. There are of course better ways to resolve neighbourly disputes other than litigation. These alternative dispute resolution options are well publicised. It is therefore unfortunate that parties, and their advisers, did not avail themselves of such opportunities to settle their differences. Instead, they had allowed the dispute to escalate into a defamation suit. There are certainly better uses for the resources that a court case of this nature would entail. Moreover, it is unlikely that litigation would put an end to any of the underlying neighbourly issues behind the case.

Both the Plaintiff, Mr John Robertson Gillies and the Defendant, Mr Suresh Balan are long-time residents of a condominium development known as Camelot By-The-Water, at 110/112/114 Tanjong Rhu Road (“Condominium”). It is in an up-scale residential district located in the eastern part of Singapore. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have been living in the condominium for more than ten years.

The defamation claims made by the Plaintiff relate to events that took place at the Condominium on 22 and 24 June 2015; and a letter sent together with a report to the police by the Defendant on 24 June 2015. These events were in turn connected to the Plaintiff’s long standing unhappiness with the noise made by young children at the swimming pool of the Condominium. The Plaintiff is also known to have disagreements with residents and the council of the MCST over the dropping-off and picking-up of residents by vehicles along the driveway in the Condominium. The 22 June 2015 event happened near the swimming pool and the 24 June 2015 event happened at the door of the Defendant’s unit at the Condominium.

The background to these disagreements between the Plaintiff on the one part and the other residents and the MCST on the other were alluded to by a resident of the Condominium, Mr Torbjorn Gunnar Karsson (“Torbjorn”) who gave evidence as a subpoenaed witness at the trial. Torbjorn is another long-time resident of the Condominium and has been a council member of the MCST for about 10 years. He had given evidence from the perspective of a long-time council member of the MCST.

Torbjorn stated that he was not surprised at the event of 22 June 2015 which happened at the swimming pool. He said that speaking as council member of the MCST, in reference to the events in the present case, he “was not surprised that it had happened again because I think this was something that we expected that will happen one more time”. He further said that he expected further incident involving the Plaintiff “either around noise in the pool area or something related to the driveway”. He said that such incidents involving the Plaintiff “came and went in waves”. ¹

Torbjorn has testified in court that the Plaintiff is “one of the most common topics in terms of the incidents that’s been occurring”.² He said that these incidents related particularly to parking in the driveway and noise around the swimming pool.³ Torbjorn said that the Plaintiff had not been satisfied with the way the MCST has been dealing with pollution caused by vehicles in the driveway and noise from the swimming pool.⁴ As a result, the Plaintiff “has taken situations into his own hand by either approaching guards or by approaching tenants or visitors, telling them how to follow instructions in the condo particularly around parking but also around noise in the pool.”⁵

Torbjorn testified that the complaints by residents against the Plaintiff included “pretty serious allegations about verbal abuse, actions taken like opening doors, shouting in through windows which many of the residents expressed personally to me and as well as in that specific council that this was an issue that they wanted us to address.”⁶ He further testified in court that the MCST council members had “concerns around the fact that [the Plaintiff] had in the past threatened to sue us, individual council members, for defamation and for various things if we stay with these cases.”⁷ Significantly, Torbjorn was not cross-examined by the Plaintiff’s counsel on his testimony in court.

Related to the Plaintiff’s disagreement with residents and the MCST, a police report was filed on 26 November 2013 by the Condominium manager at that time, one Ms Apple Seah (“Apple Seah”), who stated that the Plaintiff had told her that if he saw anyone stopping the person’s vehicle outside the fire engine access road, he would “come out from his unit and strangle the person”.⁸ This was said to Apple Seah when she was supervising the putting up of signage along the driveway indicating pick-up and drop-off points. According to her police report, the Plaintiff had come out of his unit and tore down the signage which were put up. In another police report made on 17 May 2013, a chauffeur whose employer was a resident of the Condominium stated that he felt threatened and intimidated by an incident involving the Plaintiff, where the Plaintiff forced the chauffeur’s car door open, attempted to take the ignition key and shouted at the chauffeur aggressively.⁹

In a letter to the Honourable Member of Parliament for Mountbatten (“MP”), Mr Lim Biow Chuan, the MCST gave a brief background of the Plaintiff’s history of confronting motorists over dropping-off and picking-up of residents and visitors along the driveway of the Condominium. These confrontations have resulted in heated exchange of words; and complaints against the Plaintiff by more than 10 residents.¹⁰ This letter was written in response to a letter from the MP, who was approached by the Plaintiff on the issue of pick-up and drop-off along the driveway outside his unit.¹¹

The MCST has compiled a summary of the incidents involving the Plaintiff at the Condominium over 4 years from Jan 2012 to Feb 2015. ¹² It detailed thirteen incidents, including behaviour towards security guards and aggressive conduct when confronting residents and guests alighting from vehicles along the driveway. Torjorn confirmed in court that these incidents were brought to the attention of the MCST.¹³

Separately, in a letter dated 18 November 2015 sent to the residents of the Condominium,¹⁴ the MCST alluded to multiple complaints in the preceding 4 years relating to the Plaintiff “behaving aggressively towards other residents, guests, children and worker at the Condominium”. The letter made reference to the subject of pick-up and drop-off along the driveway, noting that it was allowed, whether under the law or the bye-laws. The letter also made reference to the usage of the swimming pool, noting that noisy play is prohibited before 9am and after 7pm. The letter urged residents not to engage in aggressive and threatening behaviour “towards other residents, guests and children”. It stated that the MCST would protect its employees from “any verbal abuse, threat or harassment”. It also urged residents not to damage any estate signage, even if the person disagrees with any rules or signage that reflected these rules.

THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

With the above backdrop to the case as context, I turn to the Plaintiff’s claims and the events leading to his claims. The Plaintiff claimed that slanderous statements were made by the Defendant on 22 June 2015 (“the 22 June Statements”) and on 24 June 2015 (“the 24 June Statements”). He further claimed that libellous statements were made by the Defendant in the letter and report to the police which was copied to the MCST on 24 June 2015 (“the Further 24 June Statements”).

As alluded to above, the 22 June Statements related to a conversation that was taking place near the swimming pool of the Condominium. The Plaintiff pleaded in the statement of claim that the 22 June Statements made by the Defendant were: 13.1. “I know that you have hit guards here”; 13.2. “I have proof that you did this”.¹⁵

The Defendant on the other hand denied that those were the statements made during the conversation. He stated that he had said instead to the Plaintiff the following words:¹⁶ 14.1. “John, you have had issues with the kids before”; and 14.2. “You have had issues with the residents in the past. Also the security guards”.

Whilst the parties disagree on the details of the sequence and timing of the various individuals joining the conversation in which the defamatory statements were said to be made, there is objective evidence of only the Plaintiff, his wife Gwen Margaret Gillies (“Gwen”), Ms Catherine Solange (“Catherine”), a French lady who was living at the Condominium at the time and the Defendant being present at the point when the defamatory statements were said to be made. This cannot be seriously disputed by the parties. By the Plaintiff’s own case,¹⁷ the named individuals who heard the 22 June Statements comprised only Catherine and a security guard,¹⁸ one Mr Sadek (“Sadek”). Sadek did not appear in court and there is no evidence of what he had heard of the conversation at the swimming pool on that day. No other residents appeared in court as the Plaintiff’s witnesses to state that they had heard the 22 June Statements. In respect of Gwen, the Plaintiff’s case is that she arrived at the scene and joined the conversation at a later stage. However, the Plaintiff’s case is that the 22 June Statements were uttered “numerous time”,¹⁹ and therefore Gwen would have heard the 22 June Statements. Gwen gave evidence in court. Another witness, Mr Paul Chacko (“Paul”), gave evidence for the Defendant in regard to the 22 June Statements. As will be seen below, Paul arrived at the scene after the fact.

As for the 24 June Statements, they related to a conversation outside the door of the Defendant’s unit at the Condominium. The Plaintiff had gone to the Defendant’s unit at about 7am in the morning of 24 June 2015. He had in hand a letter asking the Defendant to...