TJ System (S) Pte Ltd and Others v Ngow Kheong Shen (No 2)

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeTai Wei Shyong AR
Judgment Date22 September 2003
Neutral Citation[2003] SGHC 217
Published date23 July 2004
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Plaintiff CounselDaniel Koh and Martin Lee (Rajah & Tann)
Defendant CounselMelanie Ho (Harry Elias Partnership)

1 The 1st plaintiffs (“TJ Systems”) in this suit are a Singapore registered company in the business of supplying security systems. The 2nd plaintiff, Ting Siew Hood (“Ting”), is the managing director of TJ Systems and the 3rd plaintiff, Leow Chin Bee (“Leow”), is a director. The 4th and 6th plaintiffs, Wang Yong Hong and Foong Kok Seng (“Wang” and “Foong” respectively) are employed as sales staff of TJ systems.

2 The defendant is the system sales manager of a Singapore company named “Cisco Security Technology Pte Ltd” (“Cisco”). Cisco too are in the business of supplying security systems and are competitors of TJ Systems.

3 Earlier this year, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th plaintiffs successfully brought a claim in the tort of defamation against the defendant in relation to an e-mail that the defendant had sent to 15 of his colleagues.

4 The facts are fairly straightforward. In early June 2002, Ting and Leow were interviewed by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (“the CPIB”) in connection with an ongoing investigation against a police officer from the Police Technology Department (“the PTD”). On the evening of 11 June 2002, the defendant sent an e-mail to 15 persons within Cisco which contained the following message:

This is to share with you that TJ system (sales staff and directors) has been called up by CPIB for investigation on bribery made to a police officer from Police Technology Dept, on 6 June 2002.

CPIB are reviewing all information relating to projects awarded to TJ System by PTD in the last 4 years. From a reliable source, PTD has internally debar (sic) TJ System for future projects, or any supplier/vendor who works with them to bid for police projects, as CPIB has possessed “strong” evidence against TJ.

If you have any dealings with TJ, please restrain (sic) from doing it as TJ System is our competitor and we should not help our competitor to grow.

Regards

Jonathan Ngow

Manager, System Sales

Cisco Security Technology

5 The nine named plaintiffs brought an action in the High Court against the defendant in the tort of defamation, alleging that by reason of the publication of the e-mail, their reputations had been injured. The defendant proceeded on the basis that the e-mail was not defamatory, and also relied on the defences of fair comment, qualified privilege and justification. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th plaintiffs succeeded before the trial judge who ordered that damages be assessed by the Registrar. The claims of the other plaintiffs were dismissed with costs as they had chosen not to testify at the trial. The purpose of the hearing before me was to assess the damages to be paid by the defendant to the five successful plaintiffs.

6 In finding the e-mail defamatory, the learned trial judge said at paragraph 39 of her judgment:

39 There is little doubt that the following extract in the email is defamatory of TJ

…CPIB has possessed strong evidence against TJ

Read in their context, the words (reinforced by the words internally debar TJ Systems for future projects) impute the possible commission of a criminal offence (bribery) by the company or, TJ’s imminent prosecution for corruption a police officer/public servant. Giving these words the most innocuous interpretation, they meant that the company was suspected of having bribed PTD staff to procure projects. The sting of the defamation was in Ngow’s use of the words (i) investigation for bribery, (ii) internally debar from future projects and (iii) Strong evidence, the logical conclusion following upon (iii) being that ultimately, charges for abetting corruption would be preferred against TJ under s 109 read with s 161 of the Penal Code Cap 224 or, the company would be charged with corruption under ss 5(b) or 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act Cap 241.

7 After hearing evidence from the parties, I awarded damages in the amount of $25,000 to the 1st plaintiffs, $30,000 each to the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, and $20,000 each to the 4th and 6th plaintiffs. In his closing submissions, Mr Koh for the five successful plaintiffs had submitted that the damages should be the region of $80,000 to $150,000 for each. In light of this submission, I felt that I should explain my reasons for the amounts I awarded.

Broad Considerations in Assessing Damages for Libel

8 The legal principles to be applied in assessing damages for libel are well established. The award of damages serves as a vindication of the plaintiff to the public, as compensation for the injury to the plaintiff’s reputation and as a solatium for the plaintiff’s injured feelings. The cases show that several factors are to be taken into account in trying to arrive at an appropriate award:

(a) The nature and gravity of the libel itself;

(b) The conduct, position and standing of the plaintiff and the defendant;

(c) The natural indignation of the court at the injury caused to the plaintiff;

(d) The conduct of the defendant from the time the libel is published to the very moment of the verdict;

(e) An apology and retraction of the libel, if any; and

(f) The presence or absence of malice.

9 In Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin [1998] 3 SLR 337, the learned Yong Pung How CJ, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said at paragraph 57:

…A broad framework of awards has emerged from past cases and these cases serve as a guide in determining the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded.

10 However, this statement was followed with the following cautionary note:

In this respect, the awards made in cases preceding this appeal must be treated with care: they are not necessarily accurate indications of appropriate awards of damages.

11 My attention was also drawn to the following dicta of the learned LP Thean JA in the case of Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew & Anor [1998] 1 SLR 97, which relates to the proper assessment of damages in defamation cases:

Before we turn to the individual awards, we wish to register a caveat on quantum of damages for defamation. As reflected in those precedent cases, substantial damages have been awarded for defamation. Indeed there appears to be a trend of such damages rising steadily and significantly over the past few years, and in the few recent cases, each successive award appeared to overtop the preceding one. Such a trend should be discouraged; otherwise damages for defamation would mount and eventually be extremely high, ranking almost with the grossly exorbitant awards so often made by juries in other jurisdictions. Lest it should be misunderstood, we are not suggesting in any way that there should be a cap placed on quantum of damages for defamation. We accept that ‘there could never be any precise, arithmetical formula to govern the assessment of general damages in defamation’ (per Thomas Bingham MR in John v MGN Ltd (Supra) at p 608). Each case depends on its own facts and there is a great deal of factual diversity in defamation cases. However, we wish to stress that damages, even for defamation, should fall within a reasonable bracket so that what is awarded represents a fair and reasonable sum which is proportionate to the harm and injury occasioned to the victim who has been unjustly defamed. On this point, we share the sentiment so succinctly expressed by Sir Thomas Bingham MR in John v MGN Ltd (Supra) at p 611:

Any legal process should yield a successful plaintiff appropriate compensation, that is, compensation which is neither too much nor too little. That is so whether the award is made by judge or jury. No other result can be accepted as just.

12 With these broad considerations in mind, I now turn to explain how I arrived at the awards in this case.

The Awards

13 In arriving at the awards, I adopted a two-stage process. First, I considered a number of cases cited to me in order to determine a suitable range of values, based on the severity of the sting of the defamatory words, and the general context in which the defamation arose. I took this as the starting point because in my view, a large component of the justice in putting a monetary value on a person’s reputation and hurt feelings necessarily arises from the element of consistency with previous awards. Neither pure logic nor legal principle can dictate how much a person’s reputation is worth in dollar terms in a vacuum. Both are, in a sense, parasitic on pre-existing norms, tempered with a subjective, but it is hoped fair, evaluation of the general context of the individual case.

14 A number of cases were cited to me as precedents, and I seek here to highlight only the more relevant ones. I begin with the case of Yeo Nai Meng v EI-Nets Ltd and Anor [2003] SGHC 110, a recent decision of the learned S Rajendran J. The plaintiff Yeo was a shareholder and director of a company named “Plan-B Technologies Pte Ltd”. He alleged that he had been defamed by the defendants by means of the publication of certain reports (the ‘Medora’ and ‘Chor Pee’ reports) which impugned his conduct in relation to a wholly-owned subsidiary of Plan-B Technologies Pte Ltd, called Plan-B Speed.Com (“Speed”). In his view, the reports meant and were understood to mean that Yeo had, among other things,

(a) committed fraud and gross misconduct against Speed;

(b) breached s 76 of the Companies Act;

(c) manipulated the accounts of Speed;

(d) breached his fiduciary duties;

(e) manipulated the bank reconciliation statements of Speed; and

(f) committed the offence of criminal misappropriation.

15 The defendants did not in the proceedings seek to deny that the reports were defamatory, but rather relied on the defences of justification and qualified privilege. In the event, both defences failed, and the plaintiff was awarded damages in the amount of $80,000.

16 Mr Koh also cited the Court of Appeal case of Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin and another action [1998] 3 SLR 337. The plaintiff had been awarded $20,000 in damages in the High Court for the following words spoken by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Golden Season Pte Ltd and others v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 9 February 2015
    ...462 (“Balakrishnan”), Ei-Nets Ltd v Yeo Nai Meng [2004] 1 SLR(R) 153 (“Ei-Nets Ltd”), TJ System (S) Pte Ltd v Ngow Kheong Shen (No 2) [2003] SGHC 217 (“TJ System”), Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David [2005] 3 SLR(R) 608 (“Oei Hong Leong”)). A brief summary of the material facts for these ......
  • Koh Sin Chong Freddie v Chan Cheng Wah Bernard
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 26 August 2013
    ...1 AC 628 (refd) Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 498 (folld) TJ System (S) Pte Ltd v Ngow Kheong Shen [2003] SGHC 217 (refd) Tsoi Ping Kwan v Medan Juta Sdn Bhd [1996] 3 MLJ 367 (refd) Vlasic v Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd (1976) 9 ACTR 1 (refd) Co......
  • Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 28 July 2010
    ...Ltd and another v Yeo Nai Meng [2004] 1 SLR(R) 153 (“Ei-Nets Ltd”); and (c) TJ System (S) Pte Ltd and Others v Ngow Kheong Shen (No 2) [2003] SGHC 217 (“TJ System”). In Ei-Nets Ltd, $80,000 in damages was awarded for an allegation that the plaintiff was dismissed as an employee of the compa......
  • Golden Season Pte Ltd and others v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 9 February 2015
    ...462 (“Balakrishnan”), Ei-Nets Ltd v Yeo Nai Meng [2004] 1 SLR(R) 153 (“Ei-Nets Ltd”), TJ System (S) Pte Ltd v Ngow Kheong Shen (No 2) [2003] SGHC 217 (“TJ System”), Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David [2005] 3 SLR(R) 608 (“Oei Hong Leong”)). A brief summary of the material facts for these ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • REPUTATION AND DEFAMATORY MEANING ON THE INTERNET
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...16 Educ & LJ 307. 15Applause Store Productions Ltd v Raphael[2008] EWHC 1781. 16TJ System (S) Pte Ltd v Ngow Kheong Shen (No 2)[2003] SGHC 217 (e-mail imputing the possible commission of a criminal offence (namely, bribery) by the company or the company's imminent prosecution for corruption......
  • Tort Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 December 2003
    ...rely simply on a representative action. 20.37 The matter was then referred to the learned assistant registrar for assessment of damages: [2003] SGHC 217. The court set out the broad factors to be taken into account in an award of damages, namely: (a) the nature and gravity of the defamation......

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