Zhao Jincheng v Yang Chengyuan
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Dorothy F M Ling |
| Judgment Date | 25 September 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] SGDC 147 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | District Court Suit No. 975 of 2017 |
| Year | 2020 |
| Published date | 17 October 2020 |
| Hearing Date | 17 June 2019,20 June 2019,19 June 2020,18 June 2019,19 June 2019,02 December 2019,13 September 2019 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Suang Wijaya and Johannes Hadi (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP) |
| Defendant Counsel | Toh Kok Seng and Christopher Khew (Lee & Lee) |
| Subject Matter | Tort,Defamation,Defamatory statements,Justification,Qualified Privilege,Malicious falsehood |
| Citation | [2020] SGDC 147 |
This was the plaintiff’s claim for damages against the defendant for defamation and malicious falsehood over a written complaint about the plaintiff that the defendant submitted to AIA Singapore Pte Ltd (“AIA”).
At the time of the complaint, the plaintiff was a Financial Services Associate Director (“FSAD”) with AIA, and the defendant was an AIA policyholder and customer.
I dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. He has appealed against my decision.
The parties The plaintiffAround April 2007, the plaintiff joined HSBC Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“HSBC”) as a financial planner. He did well and often won awards for his work performance. In 2010, the plaintiff became a Unit Manager and was in charge of a team of financial planners in HSBC.
It was around 2 November 2011 that the plaintiff became the defendant’s insurance agent when the defendant bought two insurance policies from HSBC.
However, in or around November 2013, HSBC “discontinued its agency distribution channel for insurance products”.2 Pursuant to an arrangement between HSBC and AIA for the latter to hire HSBC’s insurance agents, AIA offered the plaintiff a position as its FSAD. On or around 17 January 2014, the plaintiff formally accepted the offer and assumed the position. He remained in this position until he was no longer an AIA insurance agent.
The defendantThe defendant was a Chinese citizen who had come to Singapore in 2009 to study at the National University of Singapore (“NUS”). Upon his graduation, he stayed on in Singapore to work.
He was a customer of both HSBC and AIA in that he purchased some insurance policies from both companies at different points in time. In purchasing the policies from HSBC, and later also from AIA, it was the plaintiff who represented HSBC and then AIA and who dealt with the defendant at the material points in time.
The defendant came to know the plaintiff through a mutual friend, one Yan Yanjun (“John Yan”) who was also a policyholder of HSBC insurance policies. John Yan also bought his HSBC insurance policies through the plaintiff.
Facts of the Case In or around November 2011, the defendant purchased two insurance policies from HSBC. The policies are:
After the plaintiff joined AIA, the defendant also bought a policy from AIA through the plaintiff, although the defendant claimed that at the time of the purchase, he was unaware that this was an AIA Policy. This policy was known as the Family First Secure Policy (“FFS Policy”). This happened around mid-August 2015. It is not disputed that around that same time, the defendant surrendered his LMP Policy. However, the circumstances surrounding the purchase of the FFS Policy and the surrendering of the LMP Policy were disputed.
This case arose from a letter of complaint about the plaintiff that the defendant sent to AIA around 5 October 2015 when the plaintiff was holding the position of FSAD at AIA. The plaintiff alleged that the words contained in the letter of complaint (“
In order to appreciate the Words, it is necessary to set out the background of how the letter came to be. However, as the parties’ versions of what happened are at variance, it is necessary to give both versions of what might have transpired.
The plaintiff’s versionWhen the plaintiff left HSBC and joined AIA, he was still allowed to service the customers who had bought HSBC insurance through him in respect of their HSBC policies, but only if the customers gave their written consent for him to do so. It is not disputed that the defendant did not give consent for the plaintiff to continue to act for him.
The FFS Policy
However, according to the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim (“SOC”), the defendant contacted the plaintiff on or about 8 August 2015 to meet up to review the defendant’s insurance policies. At that meeting, the plaintiff recommended the defendant the FFS Policy with its lower premium and no loading. It was the plaintiff’s case that he then assisted the defendant to fill up the application form for the FFS Policy3 and also explained the terms and conditions of the FFS Policy to the defendant. Thereupon, the defendant signed on every page of the application papers.4 It was the plaintiff’s understanding that the defendant paid the annual premium of S$1,620 to AIA for the FFS Policy on or about 15 August 2015 at a Self-Automated Machine (“SAM”).
The LMP Policy
Concerning the LMP Policy, the plaintiff states in his affidavit that on 9 August 2015, the defendant sought his advice on whether he should surrender the LMP Policy so as to be able to remit funds to his family in China.5 According to the plaintiff, he declined to advise the defendant on this as it related to an HSBC Policy which the plaintiff was then not authorised to handle for the defendant. The plaintiff nevertheless assisted the defendant to fill up the form for the surrender of the LMP Policy. It was on 16 August 2015 that the plaintiff learnt that the defendant had surrendered his LMP Policy.6
On 19 August 2015, the plaintiff confirmed with the defendant that the defendant had received from HSBC the sum of S$1,945.58, being the surrender value for his LMP Policy. This amount included “an extra sum” of S$320.00. (Presumably, this S$320 was the difference between the surrender value of the LMP Policy at S$1,945.58 and the annual premium of the FFS Policy, at S$1,620.00.)
On 20 August 2015, the parties met up again on the plaintiff’s initiative. According to the plaintiff, this was “part of AIA’s standard “after-sales care” protocol”7. The plaintiff deposed that at this meeting, he handed the defendant the documents related to the FFS Policy.
About 17 September 2015, according to the plaintiff, the defendant called him and updated that he had remitted money back to China. The defendant also expressed interest and enquired about a savings plan with AIA (“the AIA Savings Plan).8 The plaintiff therefore emailed the defendant the product brochure “which [he] thought might be suitable for [the defendant]”.9
It was only around 28 September 2015 that the parties met up again – at the defendant’s request – to clarify about the surrender of the defendant’s LMP Policy as well as the purchase of the FFS Policy. This meeting took place inside the plaintiff’s car at the defendant’s workplace at NUS. According to the plaintiff, the meeting was about an hour.
At the said meeting at NUS, it was the plaintiff’s account of events that the defendant informed him that HSBC explained that this S$320 could be viewed as “a ‘bonus’”10 to encourage the defendant to “either sign up for other HSBC insurance policies or pay for the premium of his existing GMP Policy”.11 The plaintiff claimed to also have helped the defendant understand the differences between the LMP Policy and the FFS Policy and to also have impressed upon the defendant that he was no longer authorised to deal with the defendant’s HSBC policies.
It was also during this meeting at NUS that the parties had a heated argument. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant accused him of causing the defendant to surrender the LMP Policy. The argument ended when the defendant left the plaintiff’s car. However, the defendant returned two times: the first, to retrieve his LMP Policy documents which he had left inside the defendant’s car; and the second, to demand that the plaintiff compensate him S$4,000 which was the amount the defendant lost as a result of his surrendering his LMP Policy, which he attributed to the plaintiff. He also demanded that the plaintiff handed over his commission earned as a result of the defendant getting the FFS Policy.
These were the events – according to the plaintiff – that preceded the complaint letter to AIA, the words of which letter are the Words which are the subject of the present defamation suit.
The defendant’s version According to the defendant, on or about 12 August 2015, the plaintiff telephoned the defendant and informed that he was working for both HSBC and AIA. He understood from the plaintiff that HSBC was offering a 10% discount for its clients who had purchased the LMP Policy, and that would include the defendant. To take benefit of this, the defendant was told that he had to,
Upon the defendant’s agreeing to this, the parties met up the next day on 13 August 2015 for the defendant to sign the necessary papers. As the defendant was in a rush, they had the meeting inside the plaintiff’s car. The defendant signed the papers which the plaintiff assured that he would fill them up for him later.15 The defendant deposed that since he trusted the plaintiff and was in a rush, he just quickly signed the papers and left.16
According to the defendant, the payment of S$1,620.00 was made on 15 August 2015 at a Self-Automated...
To continue reading
Request your trial