Robin v Sunrise Investments (Pte) Ltd and Another

JudgeChao Hick Tin J
Judgment Date24 January 1991
Neutral Citation[1991] SGHC 15
Citation[1991] SGHC 15
Defendant CounselCheng Tim Pin and Lo Wai Ping (Yap & Yap)
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselHarry Elias and Francis Joan Madelene (Harry Elias & Partners)
Date24 January 1991
Docket NumberSuit No 6585 of 1983
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterDefamation,Elements of action,Effect of reasonable and probable cause,Malicious prosecution,Tort,Effect of acquittal,Proof of malice,Meaning of reasonable and probable cause,Qualified privilege,Sufficiency of evidence,Making of police report of theft,Whether defamatory

Cur Adv Vult

This is an action instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants for malicious prosecution and libel on account of a police report made on 15 March 1983 by the second defendant, on behalf of the first defendant, against the plaintiff. The second defendant was and is a shareholder and director of the first defendant. The second defendant was also at the material time the sole proprietor of Jee Ah Chian & Co, a firm of public accountants.

Plaintiff`s evidence

The plaintiff first came to know the second defendant in 1952 when the latter was the book-keeping teacher of the former at the YMCA.
They met again in 1967 and from then the plaintiff appointed the second defendant as his consultant to deal with his tax matters. Their relationship from then until the date of the police report was purely professional. They did not have any other social or business dealings.

In 1982, through financial investments, the plaintiff obtained immigrant status in Australia and left for Australia in August that year.
A condition of the scheme governing the plaintiff`s immigrant status was that he had to stay for a year in Australia. In order not to affect that status he could only leave Australia during that one year period for good reasons, eg business.

On 9 March 1983 the plaintiff returned to Singato consult the second defendant on his tax matters.
Before departing from Australia the plaintiff wrote to the second defendant on 23 February 1983 informing the latter that he would be arriving in Singapore on the evening of 9 March 1983 and that he would be staying here for a week. The plaintiff also requested for an appointment to see the second defendant at 10.15am on 10 March 1983. At the time the plaintiff was still a citizen of Singapore and was (and still is) a shareholder and director of Standard Photo Pte Ltd.

According to the plaintiff, he came to see the second defendant at his office at the appointed time and handed over to the second defendant the books and documents to enable the second defendant to prepare the accounts and the tax returns.
The plaintiff was asked to come back on 14 March 1983 to sign the accounts and the tax returns. He left two contact telephone numbers with the second defendant - the office number (2356264) of one Mr Khafi and the office number (2829122) of Standard Photo at MacPherson Road. Mr Khafi was the personal friend of the plaintiff with whom the plaintiff was then staying. The plaintiff could not be sure whether he identified the two places to which the two telephone numbers related.

The plaintiff returned to see the second defendant on 14 March 1983.
He said that the second defendant`s table was cluttered with files and papers. He went through the accounts and tax returns with the second defendant and signed them and paid for the services by way of a cheque. A receipt was issued for the payment. When he was about to leave the second defendant`s office, he asked the latter where the toilet was. He left his briefcase in the second defendant`s room. On his return from the toilet, he saw the second defendant opening his drawer and taking out a packet. From the packet the second defendant showed the plaintiff some green stones and said that those were emeralds. The stones were wrapped with a silk type of paper or oily paper. The plaintiff picked up a few of the stones to have a feel. He put the stones back into the paper wrap and the phone rang. The second defendant picked up the phone and the plaintiff then left the second defendant`s office. (I may add that in cross-examination the plaintiff gave a slightly different sequence of events: `Phone rang. I put the stones back. Bid him farewell and left.`) He did not take any of the stones. The plaintiff said that he saw one of the second defendant`s hands was placed on the paper wrap. On this visit on 14 March 1983, the plaintiff did not inform the second defendant the date when he would be returning to Australia.

After leaving the second defendant`s office, the plaintiff went to a couple of other places before returning to the Khafis` residence at 6.15pm.
Mrs Khafi told the plaintiff that there was an urgent call from the second defendant at Mr Khafi`s office. He thought it related to his tax matters. As it was past the normal office hours, he decided that he would return the call the next day. The next morning (15 March 1983), a co-director of Standard Photo came to fetch the plaintiff to the Standard Photo main office at MacPherson Road. On arrival he was told that the second defendant was trying to contact him. He called up the second defendant (at about 9.15am) who said this to him, `Hi Robin, you did not return the stones. Unless you return it right away, I am going to report you to the police.` On hearing what the plaintiff said he was astounded and told the second defendant that he must be mad. The plaintiff threatened the second defendant that if he persisted in that accusation, he would take legal action against him. The plaintiff said that he asked the second defendant to wait for him as he was coming right away to confront him with regard to the accusation. The second defendant agreed to wait for him to come over. The plaintiff arrived at the second defendant`s office just before 10am in the company of two co-directors. But the second defendant was not there. They waited for 45 minutes and then the plaintiff received a telephone call from Standard Photo informing him that an Insp Loo from the Central Police Station was looking for him. After speaking to his legal adviser (Mr Elias) on the phone the plaintiff called Insp Loo and made an appointment to see Insp Loo at 4.30pm that afternoon.

In the company of his legal adviser and a co-director, the plaintiff kept his appointment with Insp Loo.
When he was interviewed in private by Insp Loo, the plaintiff denied that he had taken the emeralds or that he was running away. The plaintiff also told Insp Loo that he was not leaving on 17 March 1983 but on 20 March 1983. At about 5pm, the second defendant came into Insp Loo`s office and accused him of taking the stones. The plaintiff called the second defendant a liar. After the second defendant left, a statement was taken by Insp Loo from the plaintiff. Insp Loo also prepared a charge of criminal breach of trust against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was arrested and released on bail. He was charged in court on 16 March 1983. On 18 March 1983 the case was fixed for hearing on 29 December 1983; but the court allowed the plaintiff to leave Singapore. In the meantime between 16 and 18 March 1983, there were some discussions between the solicitors of the two parties, initiated by the plaintiff`s solicitor, with the aim of terminating the criminal proceedings and having the dispute be determined in a civil action. And as part of the understanding, the plaintiff would not sue the second defendant on account of the police report. The proposal was that they should make a joint petition to the public prosecutor. However, no agreement could be reached. The plaintiff explained that he was anxious to have the matter sorted out because if he did not return to Australia by a certain date his immigrant status would be adversely affected.

On 4 June 1983, the plaintiff`s solicitor wrote a petition to the Attorney General`s Chambers asking that the charge against the plaintiff be withdrawn.
On 15 July 1983, the plaintiff`s solicitor was informed that the charge would be withdrawn. On 7 September 1983 a district court discharged the plaintiff amounting to an acquittal.

The plaintiff said that he first came to know of Sunrise Investments (Pte) Ltd, the first defendant, on seeing the police report made by the second defendant.
His dealings were entirely with the second defendant. The plaintiff said that in 1983 he was not dealing in real jewellery. Then his business was in 8mm home movie films, pre-recorded video tapes, imitation jewellery, watches, spare parts and tools. Prior to 1983 he had been dealing in imitation jewellery for 10 to 12 years. Even at the time of his evidence in court, the plaintiff was not dealing with precious stones but in gold and silver jewellery. He had no experience or knowledge of precious stones.

The plaintiff admitted that from 1952 until 1983 their relationship was cordial.
There had never been any misunderstanding or ill-will between them though they had no social interaction. From 1967 until 1983, he was satisfied with the second defendant`s work. He had no complaint. The second defendant had never asked him to do anything improper. The plaintiff did not know of any reason why the second defendant would want to harm him. At the time (ie March 1983), the plaintiff was not doing anything in Australia. He told the court that for 15 months from August 1982 (the time he first immigrated there) he was not working and was looking for something to do.

The plaintiff denied the defendants` counsel`s suggestion that the emeralds were packed in a small plastic packet with a small piece of paper in it on which was written the weight, the price and the number of stones therein.
He denied that such a packet was handed to him for his visual inspection. He denied that the second defendant had handed to him any emeralds for his decision whether to buy or to return on the same day.

Defendants` evidence

In his evidence the second defendant confirmed what the plaintiff said as to how they came to know each other and their subsequent relationship.
There had never been any dispute between them. On 10 March 1983, the plaintiff came to see the second defendant with his books and documents to enable the accounts to be prepared and the tax returns completed. The plaintiff left two contact telephone numbers here and also gave his Australian address.

On 14 March 1983 when the plaintiff came to see him, the second defendant said there were five files on his table, two on one side and three on the other.
The files/papers on his table...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Zainal bin Kuning and Others v Chan Sin Mian Michael and Another
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 23 August 1996
    ...Jail, LashkarAIR 1950 MB 83 (folld) Shaw v Beck (1853) 8 Exch 392; 155 ER 1401 (refd) Silas Saul Robin v Sunrise Investments (Pte) Ltd [1991] 1 SLR (R) 169; [1991] SLR 436 (refd) Subramaniam v PP [1956] 1 WLR 965 (refd) Williams v Davies (1833) 1 C & M 464; 149 ER 481 (refd) Criminal Proced......
  • AAY and others v AAZ
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 June 2009
    ...malicious prosecution is that there was no reasonable cause for the police complaint.[note: 25] In Robin v Sunrise Investments (Pte) Ltd [1991] SLR 436 (“Robin”) Chao Hick Tin J (as he then was) set out the elements of malicious prosecution: (a) prosecution by the defendant of a criminal ch......
  • Goh Lay Khim v Isabel Redrup Agency Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 10 February 2017
    ...NewspapersELR [1951] 1 KB 784 (refd) Siddapa v Lalithamma [1954] CriLJ 1235 (distd) Silas Saul Robin v Sunrise Investments (Pte) Ltd [1991] 1 SLR(R) 169; [1991] SLR 436 (refd) Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576; [1998] 1 SLR 97 (refd) Westcott v WestcottELR [2009] QB 407; [2......
  • AAY and others v AAZ
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 June 2009
    ...malicious prosecution is that there was no reasonable cause for the police complaint.[note: 25] In Robin v Sunrise Investments (Pte) Ltd [1991] SLR 436 (“Robin”) Chao Hick Tin J (as he then was) set out the elements of malicious prosecution: (a) prosecution by the defendant of a criminal ch......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Tort Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 December 2017
    ...31 See OBG Ltd v Allan [2005] QB 762 (on appeal at OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1). 32 [2017] 1 SLR 546. 33 [2003] 3 SLR(R) 146. 34 [1991] 1 SLR(R) 169. 35 [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576. 36 [2003] EMLR 11. 37 (1997) 145 ALR 682. 38 [2009] QB 407. 39 [2007] 1 WLR 2933. 40 [1999] 1 SLR(R) 397. 41 Penal ......

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