Nirumalan K Pillay and Others v A Balakrishnan and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: G P Selvam J
• Judgment Date: 08 August 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 157
• Docket Number: Suit No 2308 of 1996 (Registrar's Appeals Nos 115 and 123 of 1996)
• Date: 08 August 1996
• Year: 1996
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Chee Meng and Michael Palmer (Harry Elias & Partners)
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 157
• Defendant Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam and G Krishnan (G Krishnan & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Defamation,Plea of fair comment on a matter of public interest,Application to strike out parts of reply -Whether parts of reply relevant,Prohibition against introducing in reply matters not related to defence and which ought to have been raised in statement of claim,Whether particulars relevant,Pleadings,Reply,Civil Procedure,O 78 r 3 Rules of the Supreme Court,Particulars of facts and matters from which express malice may be inferred

The application

This is an appeal from the decision of senior assistant registrar Mr James Leong to judge in chambers. It is on a point of procedure and concerns an application by the defendants to strike out a reply filed by the plaintiffs to the defence. The cause of action is alleged libel by the defendants.

There are 11 plaintiffs in the action and four defendants. The first defendant, Mr A Balakrishnan, was the author of the alleged libellous article in Tamil which appeared in The Hammer , the party organ of the third defendants, the Workers` Party. There is no allegation that the first defendant published The Hammer containing the article in question. It is alleged that the second defendant published and caused to be published the relevant issue of The Hammer . It is further alleged that the second defendant, Mr JB Jeyaretnam, is the editor of The Hammer. The fourth defendants were the printers of the relevant issue of The Hammer. The fourth defendants have separate legal representation and did not feature themselves in the application. In this judgment the first three defendants will be called collectively as `the defendants`.

The alleged libel

The alleged libel is said to be contained in an article on a campaign called the Tamil Language Week (the Week). The plaintiffs were members of the organizing committee. Several Indian members of Parliament from the People`s Action Party, including a cabinet minister, participated in functions of the Week. A separate libel action was brought by the People`s Action Party members of Parliament.

The material allegations of libel against the defendants in this action are set out in the amended statement of claim as follows :

6 The words complained of in para 4 herein meant and were understood to mean in their natural and ordinary meaning that :

(a) the plaintiffs and each of them are stooges of the government in allowing themselves to be regarded as the sacrificial white doves;

(b) the plaintiffs organized the Tamil Language Week in order to obtain and curry favour with the government;

(c) the plaintiffs are incompetent, inactive and ineffective in promoting the Tamil language and they are cheats and liars in not fulfilling their duties in the specific cause of promoting the Tamil language; and

(d) the plaintiffs are nakedly prostituting themselves in order to seek political gain/office rather than serve the cause of the Tamil language.

The plaintiffs have claimed damages and aggravated damages and the facts and matters to support the claim for aggravated damages are set out in five sub-paragraphs. It is unnecessary to repeat them here.

The defence

The defendants filed a joint defence in which they denied the libel. As an alternative defence they said that: `If, which is denied, the words refer to the plaintiffs and are defamatory at all of the plaintiffs the defendants say the words are fair comment on a matter of public interest.` Particulars of fair comment were set out in five paragraphs. It is unnecessary to repeat them here.

The reply

The plaintiffs responded to the defence by filing a reply. The reply stated that the words complained of were not comment but defamatory assertions of fact. Further in prayer 4 of the reply the plaintiffs set out in six sub-paragraphs additional facts and matters in support of their claim for aggravated damages. More significantly in para 3 they alleged that `in publishing or causing the publication of the words complained the first, second and third Defendants were actuated by express malice.` The reply then condescended to a long list of particulars of express malice pursuant to O 78 r 3 (3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court (the RSC). They are as follows:

(a) The third defendants are an opposition political party who hold one seat in Parliament. The second defendant is the secretary-general of the third defendants and the first defendant is a member of the third defendants;

(b) the said article was a false and baseless attack on the present government`s policies relating to the Tamil language;

(c) the first, second and third defendants have admitted that the said article was a false and baseless attack on various members of the present government. In an apology published in English and Tamil in the Straits Times and the Tamil Murasu on 23 November 1995, respectively, the first, second and third defendants unreservedly withdrew all the false and baseless allegations made in the said article;

(d) notwithstanding the first, second and third defendants` admission that the said article was false and baseless, the first, second and third defendants refused to apologise to the plaintiffs even though the said article had viciously attacked the plaintiffs as alleged in paras 6 and 6A of the amended statement of claim;

(e) in the premises, the first, second and third defendants published or caused the said article to be published knowing it was false and/or recklessly not caring whether it was true or false for the purpose of putting the present government in a bad light and with a view to obtaining a political advantage. The plaintiffs will rely, inter alia, on the following facts and matters:

(i) on or about 18 December 1976, at an election rally of the third defendants held at Fullerton Square, the second defendant gave a speech in which he inferred that the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the secretary-general of the PAP, procured the grant of favours to Messrs Lee & Lee (of which his wife was a senior partner)...