World Sport Group Pte Ltd v Dorsey James Michael

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 10 April 2013
• Date: 10 April 2013
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 839 of 2012 (Registrar's Appeal No 404 of 2012)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

World Sport Group Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Dorsey James Michael

Defendant

[2013] SGHC 78

Judith Prakash J

Originating Summons No 839 of 2012 (Registrar's Appeal No 404 of 2012)

High Court

Civil Procedure—Interrogatories—Application to administer pre-action interrogatories—Article containing allegedly defamatory material and references to confidential report posted on blog—Sources quoted in article potentially liable for defamation and breach of confidence—Whether interrogatories designed to elicit identity of sources in article to be allowed

The plaintiff provided sports marketing and media and event management services in connection with international sporting events throughout Asia. Together with its related entities, the plaintiff had been in a contractual relationship with the Asian Football Confederation (‘AFC’) since 1993 with respect to the commercial rights of major football competitions staged by the AFC. The AFC was the organiser, controller and official governing body of the sport of association football throughout Asia (including Australia).

On 15 June 2009, the AFC and an associate of the plaintiff entered into a master rights agreement (‘the MRA’) for the exploitation of commercial rights to AFC football competitions taking place between 2013 and 2020. The MRA was novated to the plaintiff with effect from 1 January 2010. According to the plaintiff, the MRA contained a strict confidentiality clause which prevented the plaintiff from disclosing its contents unless required by law.

In July 2011, Mohamed bin Hammam (‘MBH’), the then president of AFC, was banned from the International Federation of Association Football (‘FIFA’) as a result of allegations of election bribery made against him. Subsequently, the Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned this ban but FIFA then banned him again pending concerns regarding his management of AFC's funds as well as pending a renewed investigation into the election bribery charges.

On 13 July 2012, Price Waterhouse Coopers Advisory Service Sdn Bhd, under the instructions of AFC and its Malaysian solicitors, put up an audit report (‘the Report’) reviewing transactions, accounting practices and contracts negotiated during MBH's tenure as president of the AFC. The Report contained a number of references to the MRA and its commercial terms. The plaintiff alleged that remarks defamatory of it were contained in the Report.

On 28 August 2012, the defendant put up an article entitled ‘FIFA investigates: World Cup host Qatar in the hot seat’ on his blog (‘the article’). The plaintiff submitted that certain portions of the article, when read alone and together, conveyed imputations defamatory of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff then initiated these proceedings under O 24 r 6 (1) and O 26A r 1 (1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) in order to obtain pre-action discovery from, and administer pre-action interrogatories against, the defendant. An assistant registrar ordered the defendant to answer all the interrogatories administered, but she refused to order discovery of the documents asked for. The defendant appealed against the order made on interrogatories.

Held, allowing the appeal in part:

(1) The court would order a party to disclose his source of information if the plaintiff showed that it had a real interest in suing the source and this outweighed the public interest of preserving the confidence of sources: at [32] .

(2) The ‘newspaper rule’ in England, that the courts would not, as a rule, compel a newspaper in a libel action to disclose before trial the source of its information, did not apply in Singapore. Instead, the courts would lean in favour of a balancing of interests approach in resolving cases that required a reporter or journalist to disclose the identity of his source: at [19] .

(3) In an application for pre-action discovery, the court had a duty to ensure that such an application was not frivolous or speculative and that the applicant was not on a fishing expedition. Once the court was satisfied that these criteria had been met, the next consideration would be whether the discovery would be necessary for disposing fairly of the proceedings or for saving costs: at [20] .

(4) The principles stated in the cases on pre-action discovery were also relevant in cases like the present on pre-action interrogatories: at [20] .

(5) The article contained statements that were, prima facie, defamatory of the plaintiff and had identified these statements as emanating either from the Report or from ‘sources close to the AFC’ or from ‘sources’ who might or might not have been the same as those close to the AFC. If in fact such sources had provided the Report or information about the Report to the defendant, they would, prima facie, have defamed the plaintiff or assisted in the publication of defamatory statements. Thus, the plaintiff on the face of it had a cause of action in defamation against such sources: at [25] .

(6) Anybody who was employed by the AFC or had come to know about the MRA by reason of a connection with the AFC could possibly be liable to the plaintiff for breach of confidence if such person had released information about the same to the defendant who was not entitled to be given such information by virtue of the confidentiality clause in the MRA: at [26] and [29] .

(7) Therefore the plaintiff had not made its application frivolously or vexatiously, and it had a valid reason for administering pre-action interrogatories to the defendant: at [27] .

(8) The fact that the defendant might be liable for defamation was not a sufficient reason to allow him to protect his sources since pursuing a legal action against the defendant alone might not be effective: at [28] .

(9) The defendant had to answer interrogatories 1, 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c), 6 and 6.1. The plaintiff was entitled to know what connection the defendant's source had with the AFC since such connection would determine whether and, if so, the extent to which the confidentiality of the MRA had been breached by the AFC or a person connected to it: at [2] and [30] .

(10) The public interest in the free flow of information would not be adversely affected by the orders made against the defendant in the light of the prima facie probability that his sources were in breach of their legal obligations of confidentiality by furnishing him with information on, or a copy of, the MRA: at [33] .

Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2004] 4 SLR (R) 39; [2004] 4 SLR 39 (refd)

British Steel Corp v Granada Television Ltd [1981] AC 1096 (refd)

KLW Holdings Ltd v Singapore Press Holdings Ltd [2002] 2 SLR (R) 477; [2002] 4 SLR 417 (refd)

Ng Giok Oh v Sajjad Akhtar [2003] 1 SLR (R) 375; [2003] 1 SLR 375 (refd)

Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133 (refd)

Richland Logistics Services Pte Ltd v Biforst Singapore Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 137 (refd)

Tullett Prebon (Singapore) Ltd v Spring Mark Geoffrey [2007] 3 SLR (R) 187; [2007] 3 SLR 187 (refd)

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 26A r 1 (1) , O 26A r 1 (5) , O 26A r 2 (consd) ;O 24 r 6 (1)

Deborah Evaline Barker SC and Hewage Ushan Saminda Premaratne (Khattar Wong LLP) for the plaintiff;

NSreenivasan and Sujatha Selvakumar (Straits Law Practice LLC) for the defendant

.

Judith Prakash J

1 The plaintiff in this originating summons, World Sport Group Pte Ltd, initiated these proceedings under O 24 r 6 (1) and O 26A r 1 (1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) (‘the Rules’) in order to obtain pre-action discovery from, and administer pre-action interrogatories against, the defendant, James Michael Dorsey. The interrogatories sought to be administered were set out in Schedule 1 annexed to the Originating Summons. A copy of Schedule 1 is annexed to these grounds of decision.

2 The application first came on for hearing before an assistant registrar (‘AR’) and she ordered the defendant to answer all the interrogatories set out in Schedule 1. She refused, however, to order discovery of the documents specified in Schedule 2 (which was also annexed to the Originating Summons). The defendant appealed. There was, however, no cross-appeal by the plaintiff on the issue of discovery. On hearing the appeal, I decided that the defendant had to answer the following interrogatories, viz,nos1, 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c), 6 and 6.1. I allowed the defendant's appeal in respect of the...