[2024] SGHC 136 — Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (5)

Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Firm Davinder Singh s/o Amar Singh Counsel Claimant Fong Cheng Yee David Counsel Claimant Sambhavi Rajangam Counsel Claimant Wong Zi Qiang Bryan Counsel Claimant

Parties (3)

Lee Hsien Yang Defendant Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan Claimant Vivian Balakrishnan Claimant

Summary

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

24 May 2024

Case summary

Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang and another matter [2024] SGHC 136
Originating Claims Nos 496 and 497 of 2023 (Assessment of Damages Nos 4 and 3 of 2024)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision of the General Division of the High Court (delivered by Justice Goh Yihan):

Outcome: The GDHC orders the defendant to pay $150,000 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages to each of the two claimants for his defamatory remarks.

Background

1 The claimant in HC/OC 496/2023 (“OC 496”) is Mr Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan, while the claimant in HC/OC 497/2023 (“OC 497”) is Dr Vivian Balakrishnan. Both claimants are Cabinet Ministers and lessees of 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road, respectively.

2 The defendant in both OC 496 and OC 497 is Mr Lee Hsien Yang. On 23 July 2023, he published a post on his Facebook page (the “Post”) alleging that: (a) the renovations to the Ridout Road properties were paid by the State; and (b) the trees at the properties were allowed to be felled because the lessees were the claimants (the “Offending Words”). On 25 July 2023, a Correction Direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (2020 Rev Ed) was issued against the defendant in relation to the Post. In response, the defendant edited the Post to indicate that a Correction Direction had been issued, but did not remove the Offending Words from the Post until 10 November 2023.

3 On 2 August 2023, the claimants commenced OC 496 and OC 497. They obtained permission to effect substituted service of sealed copies of the Originating Claims and Statements of Claim on the defendant out of Singapore by Facebook messenger. On 16 September 2023, the defendant published a post on his Facebook page confirming that he had been served with process in OC 496 and OC 497, but failed to file and serve his Notice of Intention to Contest or Not Contest (the “Notice of Intention”) within the prescribed deadline. Accordingly, on 2 November 2023, the GDHC granted judgments in favour of the claimants with damages to be assessed.

The court’s decision

4 At the outset, the defendant’s failure to file a Defence means that he admits to the facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim. Because judgments in default of the Notice of Intention were granted against him, he will not be able to dispute liability at an assessment of damages hearing. The failure to respond is also a relevant factor in assessing damages: at [20]–[22].

5 In its assessment of damages, the court considered the following factors: (a) the nature and gravity of the defamation; (b) the conduct, position, and standing of the claimants and the defendant; (c) the mode and extent of the publication; (d) the conduct of the defendant from the time the defamatory statement was published to the moment of the verdict; (e) the defendant’s failure to apologise and retract the defamatory statement; and (f) the presence of malice: at [28].

6 The defendant’s defamatory allegations against the claimants are of the gravest kind, as they went towards their personal integrity, professional reputation, honour, and core attributes of their personalities: at [31]–[35].

7 The claimants are public leaders and persons of the highest integrity who have a high standing. The defendant is well-known in Singapore: at [36]–[40].

8 There has been and continues to be substantial publication and republication of the Offending Words in Singapore: at [47]–[53].

9 The defendant did not apologise and/or remove the Post despite being given an opportunity to do so by the claimants. He also acted with malice because he knew that the Offending Words were false, published them recklessly, and/or without considering or caring whether they were true or not: at [59]–[68].

10 Having considered the facts in Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] 4 SLR 1128 and Lee Hsien Loong v Xu Yuan Chen and another suit [2022] 3 SLR 925, as well as other relevant decisions, the court awards $150,000 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages to each claimant. The defendant is thus liable for damages totalling $400,000: at [89].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.

What was Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang [2024] SGHC 136 about?

Decided on 24 May 2024 by Goh Yihan J, the case was an assessment of damages for defamation. It followed a default judgment granted on 2 November 2023 in favour of claimants Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan and Vivian Balakrishnan against Lee Hsien Yang, who did not respond or appear.

Why did the court assess damages by default in [2024] SGHC 136?

The defendant, Lee Hsien Yang, had not responded to the Originating Claims since they were filed on 2 August 2023 and did not appear at the 2 May 2024 hearing. Goh Yihan J therefore decided the assessment on the claimants' case, granting general and aggravated damages.

Statutes Cited

State Courts Act (Cap 321) Cases on this Act →

s 39(1)(a)

Cases Cited (24)

SG (3)

[2019] SGHC 116 [2023] SGHC 311 [2023] SGHC 331

SLR (17)

[1988] 2 SLR(R) 252 [1989] 2 SLR(R) 544 [1990] 1 SLR(R) 709 [1995] 3 SLR(R) 38 [1997] 2 SLR(R) 81 [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576 [1999] 2 SLR(R) 369 [2001] 1 SLR(R) 86 [2005] 1 SLR(R) 552 [2009] 1 SLR(R) 642 [2010] 1 SLR 52 [2010] 4 SLR 357 [2013] 4 SLR 629 [2016] 1 SLR 1321 [2021] 2 SLR 816 [2021] 4 SLR 1128 [2022] 3 SLR 924

UK (1)

[1972] 1 AC 1027

AU (2)

[2018] NSWSC 1518 [2020] NSWCA 45

MY (1)

[1984] 1 MLJ 97

Referenced in

Statutes interpreted in this judgment

State Courts Act

Legal concepts & references

Damages — Assessment Defamation and harassment (POHA) in Singapore

Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang