[2026] SGDC 1 — ALICIA TAN GEK CHENG v POK VIC SENT

Please delete where applicable –

1. This judgment DOES NOT need redaction.

2. Redaction HAS NOT been done.

DISTRICT JUDGE SAMUEL WEE CHOONG SIAN

19 JANUARY 2026

In the state courts of the republic of singapore

[2026] SGDC 1

District Court Originating Claim No 916 of 2022

Between

Alicia Tan Gek Cheng

… Claimant

And

Pok Vic Sent

… Defendant

judgment

Tort — Defamation — Damages

Tort — Defamation — Defamatory statements — Whether publications made to the sporting community about its sports association’s executive committee are defamatory in nature

Tort — Defamation — Defamatory statements — Whether the contents of a special resolution submitted for an annual general meeting are defamatory in nature

Tort — Defamation — Malice — Whether the defendant acted with malice by making the defamatory publications to prevent the claimant from serving on the executive committee of a sports association

Tort — Defamation — Publication — Whether the creator of a collaborative online document that can be accessed and edited by multiple users is responsible for its publication

Tort — Defamation — Qualified privilege – Whether the defence of qualified privilege applies to publications made to the sporting community about its sports association’s executive committee

This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.

Alicia Tan Gek Cheng

Pok Vic Sent

[2026] SGDC 1

District Court Originating Claim No 916 of 2022
District Judge Samuel Wee
15, 18, 21 and 22 August 2025, 16, 17 and 21-24 October 2025, 5 January 2026

19 January 2026 Judgment reserved.

District Judge Samuel Wee:

Introduction

1 This is a defamation suit brought by the former Honorary Secretary of the Singapore Ice Skating Association (“SISA”) against the President of one of SISA’s affiliated clubs, Snow Leopard Speed Skating Club (“SLSSC”). The dispute centres on the Defendant’s dissatisfaction with the governance of Singapore's ice skating community, particularly concerning funding decisions and the handling of interpersonal conflicts within the sport.

2 The Claimant, Ms Alicia Tan Gek Cheng (“Ms Alicia Tan”), alleges that the Defendant, Mr Pok Vic Sent (“Mr Pok”), defamed her through six separate publications between November 2018 and September 2021 (“Six Impugned Publications”) while she served as SISA’s Honorary Secretary. These publications comprised an online petition (“First Impugned Publication”), comments on a Google Document (“Second Impugned Publication”), two versions of a Special Resolution Form (“Third Impugned Publication” and “Fourth Impugned Publication”) and the resultant agenda item (“Fifth Impugned Publication”) for SISA’s 2021 Annual General Meeting (“AGM”), and a speech accompanying a PowerPoint presentation at SISA’s 2021 AGM (“Sixth Impugned Publication”).

3 The allegations concern the Claimant’s conduct as SISA’s Honorary Secretary, particularly regarding: (a) her management style; (b) her alleged role in the departure of a national coach; (c) funding decisions that allegedly benefitted her daughter; and (d) her handling of a social media incident involving her daughter. The Six Impugned Publications formed part of the Defendant’s efforts to prevent the Claimant from serving on SISA’s Executive Committee (“Exco”).

4 The Defendant asserts that the Six Impugned Publications are not defamatory and denies authorship of some publications. He also raises defences of justification and qualified privilege, contending that the Six Impugned Publications were either true or made in the legitimate interests of the skating community.

5 As will be detailed below, I allow the Claimant’s claim in respect of the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Impugned Publications.

Background facts

The Parties

6 The Claimant served as SISA’s Vice President from September 2017 to September 2018, its Honorary Secretary from September 2018 to September 2022 and its Secretary General from September 2022 to September 2025. Her daughter, Ms Amelia Chua, is a short track speed skater.

7 The Defendant is the President of SLSSC. He has been actively involved in the skating community since 2015, volunteering with SISA and helping with media production for major events. His wife, Dr Kam Ming Nie (“Dr Kam”), served as SISA’s Vice President from September 2016 to September 2017 and as a Committee Member of SISA’s Exco from September 2017 to September 2018. His children are short track speed skaters.

SISA

8 SISA is Singapore’s national sports association for ice skating. It is recognised by Sport Singapore, and is a member of the Singapore National Olympic Council, the Asian Skating Union and the International Skating Union (“ISU”).

9 SISA is governed by its Exco, which makes decisions collectively. The composition of the Exco during the relevant periods is as follows:

(a) From September 2016 to September 2017: Ms Sonja Chong (President), Dr Kam Ming Nie (Vice President), Ms Alison Chan (Honorary Secretary), Mr Jonas Chua (Honorary Treasurer) and Ms Helen Chai (Committee Member).

(b) From September 2017 to September 2018: Ms Sonja Chong (President), Ms Alicia Tan (Vice President), Mr David Chandra (Honorary Secretary), Mr Gary Sng (Honorary Treasurer) and Dr Kam Ming Nie (Committee Member).

(c) From September 2018 to September 2019: Ms Sonja Chong (President), Mr David Chandra (Vice President), Ms Alicia Tan (Honorary Secretary), Mr Gary Sng (Honorary Treasurer) and Mr Leonard Cheah (Committee Member).

(d) From September 2019 to September 2020: Ms Alison Chan (President), Ms Priscilla Ng (Vice President), Ms Alicia Tan (Honorary Secretary), Mr Gary Sng (Honorary Treasurer) and Ms Gina Sim (Committee Member).

(e) From September 2020 to September 2021: Ms Alison Chan (President), Mr Michael Loke (Vice President), Ms Alicia Tan (Honorary Secretary), Ms Gina Sim (Honorary Treasurer) and Ms Hilda Cheung (Committee Member).

(f) From September 2021 to September 2022: Ms Alison Chan (President), Mr Romain Meraud (Vice President), Ms Alicia Tan (Honorary Secretary), Ms Gina Sim (Honorary Treasurer) and Ms Hilda Cheung (Committee Member).

10 SISA’s day-to-day management and operations are supported by its staff, who are referred to as the “Secretariat”, which included Ms Elly Tan (General Manager) and Mr Mahipal Singh (Sports Manager). SISA’s Secretariat routinely makes decisions on behalf of SISA, sometimes without consultation with SISA’s Exco.

11 Under SISA’s Constitution in force at the time, certain matters, such as the election of the Exco, must be put to vote at a general meeting.

(a) Of SISA’s five membership categories, only Club Ordinary Members possess voting rights at these meetings – such clubs must have at least 30 valid Individual Members, and may appoint one representative to attend and vote at general meetings (“Voting Representative”). The other four membership categories are: Club Associate Members for clubs without voting rights; Individual Members for individuals registered with a Club Ordinary Member or Club Associate Member; Basic Skills Members for individuals who participate in SISA’s Learn to Skate programme; and Honorary Members.

(b) Due to the small size of the Singapore ice skating community, SISA currently has only seven Club Ordinary Members with voting rights: SLSSC (with the Defendant serving as its Voting Representative), Island Ice Figure Skating Club (“IIFSC”), 111.12m Skating Club (“111.12SC”), Champions Ice Skating Club and three others.

12 Singapore’s ice skating community (“Skating Community”) is divided into two segments: figure skating (“Figure Skating Community”) and short track speed skating (“Short Track Community”). The Short Track Community is comparatively smaller, with 30 active speed skaters in 2018, most of whom were SLSSC members.

Changes in SISA’s competition funding policy in the second half of 2018

13 In the second half of 2018, SISA’s Exco decided to focus its funding and resources on regional-level competitions (“2018 Funding Policy Change”). This departed from the previous practice of supporting participation in international competitions.

(a) In September 2018, SISA decided to fund two Short Track Community participants at the 2018 Asian Trophy and invited applications. The first space was filled by the only applicant, Mr Piius Sng (the son of Mr Gary Sng, SISA’s then Honorary Treasurer); and the second space was filled by Ms Amelia Chua (the Claimant’s daughter) following a ballot conducted by SISA’s Secretariat.

(b) On 11 October 2018, SISA formally announced the policy change to the Short Track Community.

14 The 2018 Funding Policy Change caused displeasure amongst the Defendant and part of the Short Track Community (“Dissenting Segment”) because it was implemented without prior consultation with the Short Track Community and midway through the competition season. This displeasure was compounded by the perception that SISA was providing preferential treatment to the children of its Exco.

Open forum on 28 October 2018

15 The Dissenting Segment’s displeasure with the 2018 Funding Policy Change was discussed at an open forum held on 28 October 2018 (“Oct 2018 Open Forum”) alongside other issues, such as concerns about SISA’s financial management and event organisation. The Oct 2018 Open Forum was attended by representatives from SISA’s Exco, SISA’s Secretariat and some Short Track Community members, and led to the formation of working groups to explore the unresolved issues.

16 However, within three weeks of forming the working groups, the Defendant felt that the Dissenting Segment was not seeing their desired results. He therefore decided to explore other means of communicating the Dissenting Segment’s sentiments as part of an effort to get the Claimant to resign from SISA’s Exco, which led to the Six Impugned Publications that are discussed below.

Departure of the national short track speed skating coach, Ms Chun Lee Kyung, in November 2018

17 In November 2018, Singapore’s short track speed skating coach, Ms Chun Lee Kyung (“Coach Chun”), chose not to renew her contract with SISA. Despite months of negotiations, SISA and Coach Chun could not reach an agreement on the contractual terms of her renewal. A key contention was the proposed job scope and key performance indicators in Coach Chun's proposed contract (that SISA’s Exco had approved), which emphasised regional competitions and youth development rather than the international-level events that Coach Chun had prioritised.

18 The Defendant and the Dissenting Segment were unhappy with Coach Chun’s departure, as they respected her and were accustomed to her approach.

19 The Defendant and the Dissenting Segment were also dissatisfied that warning letters were issued against several Short Track Community skaters who breached ISU’s rules by wearing T-shirts and holding a large placard stating “Thank you Coach Chun” at a competition where Coach Chun assisted despite no longer being contracted to SISA.

First Impugned Publication in November 2018

20 In early November 2018, the Defendant started an online petition titled “Petition Vote of No Confidence – Hon. Secretary” (“Petition”) to gather support for his and the Dissenting Segment’s agenda of removing the Claimant from SISA’s Exco. The Petition sets out the Dissenting Segment’s views about the Claimant's management style and her role in Coach Chun’s departure.

21 The material portions of the Petition that the Claimant relies on for her claim relating to the First Impugned Publication are reproduced as follows:

Since the appointment of the Vice President at the 2017 AGM and her subsequent re-appointment as the Honorary Secretary at the 2018 AGM, the community has taken note of the following …

No clear media and/or marketing campaign and budget plan for SISA has been communicated to the community. This was one of the items brought up for her election into EXCO. The community is concerned that there is no transparency on activities such as preparation and running of events. Over time, we are gravely concerned about the direction and state of SISA's finances, with more than double the spend in Events and Functions ($133k) and other Travel and Expenses ($33k). Priority has instead been focused on specific events and appears to be at the expense of other important areas (coach, athlete funding, etc) …

The policy issues raised by the Short Track community during the open forum on Sunday 28th October 2018, had a number of agreed action items. In the week after the forum, significant number of these were subsequently stalled or reversed and very restrictive agreement documents were issued which required the volunteers to have no independence. The Hon. Secretary was present for less than 1 hour. The community expects the office bearers in the EXCO to demonstrate a deeper interest and care for the community.

The community has taken note of the change in tone and engagement since the Hon secretary was appointed. SISA was more open and collaborative prior to her new appointment. The non-collaborative, condescending tone and approach was and is strongly felt after the last Annual General Election, and this has been significantly amplified after the open forum.

SEA Trophy Competition 2019 - the community has specifically requested for the budgeting and planning to be opened, which was agreed to by EXCO members present at the forum (Sonja Chong, David Chandra, Gary Sng) and subsequently this has been kept in the dark because the instruction for the volunteer working group is to work only on Inter-School event instead of SEA Trophy and Asian Trophy. This is the largest event for SISA and has the potential to drain a lot of cash from SISA’s already low cash balance. This project is run directly by the Hon Secretary, and it seems she can operate without checks and balances, on the budget and expenses.

The recent change in engagement style has led to Short Track National Coach (CHUN Lee Kyung) feeling unappreciated and her input has not been incorporated into any plans for skaters and competitions, resulting in her role having no value other than to listen to EXCO instructions and just follow their direction without needing any open discussions. This has resulted in her resigning as the Short Track National Coach and her last day is 15 Nov 2018.

22 The Petition garnered fifty signatures from across the Skating Community.

23 According to the Defendant’s wife, Dr Kam (who had stepped down as a Committee Member of SISA’s Exco some months before the Petition), the Petition was started because the Claimant “was not representing the interests of the short track community”.

The Defendant’s request for an Extraordinary General Meeting in January 2019

24 On 24 January 2019, the Defendant (in his capacity as SLSSC’s President) and Mr Jackie Chin (IIFSC’s President) requested an Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) to address the Skating Community’s purported distrust in SISA’s Exco, which stemmed from concerns about SISA’s leadership and financial management. The EGM was also intended to further the Defendant’s and the Dissenting Segment’s agenda of ousting SISA’s current Exco (including the Claimant).

25 SISA scheduled the EGM on 26 February 2019 (“2019 EGM”).

26 Prior to the 2019 EGM, SISA issued a letter on 24 February 2019 signed by its entire Exco (“2019 EGM Letter”) to set out SISA’s narrative on various incidents that had resulted in what SISA described as “an unprecedented level of dissent, initiated primarily by a group of short track parents”. The 2019 EGM Letter addressed issues such as the 2018 Funding Policy Change, SISA’s financial status and Coach Chun’s departure.

Second Impugned Publication in February 2019

27 The 2019 EGM Letter prompted the Defendant’s creation of an online Google Document (“Google Doc”) to provide the Skating Community with a platform to address perceived inaccuracies in the 2019 EGM Letter.

28 Various annotations and comments were included in the Google Doc (“Annotated Google Doc”) by Short Track Community members and Figure Skating Community members, including allegations about the Claimant’s influence over the 2018 Funding Policy Change, and SISA’s funding of the Claimant’s daughter’s participation at the 2018 Asian Trophy (see [13(a)] above).

29 The material parts of the Annotated Google Doc that the Claimant relies on for her claim relating to the Second Impugned Publication are reproduced as follows:

(a) A comment at page 4 of the Annotated Google Doc stating:

SISA is fully funding 2 junior skaters to travel from South Korea to Jakarta to participate in Asian Trophy. SISA also fully funds Coach to attend Asian Trophy. Both of these junior skaters are children of EXCO members (Honorary Secretary and Treasurer). This is contrary to SISA’s above statement “more aligned with that of the funding policy for Figure Skating, for which SISA does not fund coaches.”

(b) A comment at page 17 of the Annotated Google Doc stating:

Lastly, the community is concerned about discriminatory enforcement of policies again occurring, with this case being a skater who is a child of Exco can get away with bringing a commercial object on the podium which is neither a mascot of State or Sport, while other skaters need to be disciplined for thanking their coach.

David Chandra sent a letter to SportSG on 11 Dec 2018 to highlight conflict of interests with EXCO’s decision making. David was the VP in EXCO at that time. The following describes what happened in October 2018. Originally the EXCO decided (He was part of this decision) not to allow coach to attend. EXCO discussed that the main reason was that financially it does not make sense to spend so much money for a coach to accompany the skater to each competition. On 28 October 2018, at the Open Forum, the community then suggested a way to fund coach through new revenue source from the community. SISA EXCO agreed this can be explored.

Subsequently, these decisions were reversed at the EXCO meeting held on 31 October 2018, which only had 3 EXCO members: President, Honorary Secretary and Treasurer. Of the two items raised above, there were conflict of interest for the attending EXCO members, which should have resulted in non-majority decision being made. For the SEA Trophy and Asian Trophy event funding, there is conflict of interest for the Honorary Secretary and President, who are personally involved in the project. For the decision on coach attending World Cup in Kazakhstan on 5 – 9 December, that competes with funding for coach to attend Asian Trophy in Jakarta on 30 November – 2 December. This decision has conflict of interest for the Treasurer and Honorary Secretary whose children are the only two attending Asian Trophy.

The outcome of the 2019 EGM

30 The Defendant’s and Dissenting Segment’s attempt to oust SISA’s Exco at the 2019 EGM was unsuccessful. Only two of SISA’s six Club Ordinary Members at the time voted in favour of their own request (ie. the Defendant (on behalf of SLSSC) and Mr Jackie Chin (on behalf of IIFSC)).

Removal of the First and Second Impugned Publications in April 2019

31 After the 2019 EGM, SISA found out about the Annotated Google Doc.

32 At SISA’s request, the Defendant removed the First and Second Impugned Publications (ie. the Petition and Annotated Google Doc) on 4 April 2019. He, however, chose not to provide an apology to SISA or the Claimant.

33 The Claimant was subsequently re-appointed as SISA’s Honorary Secretary for two further terms from September 2019 to September 2020 and September 2020 to September 2021, before the next events material to these proceedings occurred.

Social media incident involving the Claimant’s daughter in January 2021

34 On 12 January 2021, the Claimant's daughter posted an Instagram Story (“Instagram Incident”) alleging that three fellow national team speed skaters had bullied her (“Three Alleged Bullies”).

35 In response to complaints from the Three Alleged Bullies’ parents, SISA’s Exco arranged two sets of investigations:

(a) Investigations by the Safe Sport Taskforce of Sport Singapore (“Safe Sport”). SISA’s request to Safe Sport was made around 20 January 2021, with the investigation findings issued on 7 April 2021. Safe Sport concluded that there was no pattern of bullying by the Three Alleged Bullies, but made no specific findings on the Instagram Incident.

(b) Investigations by an independent Board of Inquiry. SISA’s Exco convened the Board of Inquiry because the Three Alleged Bullies’ parents were dissatisfied with the outcome of Safe Sport’s investigations. The Board of Inquiry was only formed in early February 2022 due to difficulties in appointing a chairperson, with the investigation findings issued on 21 August 2022. The Board of Inquiry concluded that the Claimant’s daughter’s allegations of bullying were unsubstantiated.

36 As the Claimant’s daughter was involved, SISA’s Exco excluded the Claimant from deliberations relating to the Instagram Incident, and she was not involved in any of the decisions relating to the handling or investigation of the Instagram Incident.

37 Before the Board of Inquiry was formed, the Defendant and the Dissenting Segment decided to use the Instagram Incident as a means to prevent the Claimant from standing for SISA’s Exco at the 2021 AGM scheduled on 30 September 2021.

Third to Fifth Impugned Publications in September 2021

38 In early September 2021, SISA notified its members that the 2021 AGM was scheduled on 30 September 2021.

39 On 15 September 2021, the Defendant (in his capacity as SLSSC’s President) submitted a Special Resolution Form (“First Special Resolution Form”) for the 2021 AGM.

(a) The First Special Resolution Form sought to preclude the Claimant from contesting the Honorary Secretary position at the 2021 AGM, which the Defendant’s wife had initially intended to contest.

(b) The First Special Resolution Form also asserted that the Claimant had abused her position in SISA’s Exco to unfairly influence SISA’s handling of the Instagram Incident.

(c) The material parts of the First Special Resolution Form that the Claimant relies on for her claim relating to the Third Impugned Publication are reproduced as follows:

The incident of Amelia Chua’s social media post, where she claimed that 4 National team short track skaters had bullied her, was untrue, defamatory and damaging to the reputation of the 4 persons. Despite 8 months since reporting of this matter to SISA, SportSG, and Safe Sport, nothing has been done by SISA to address the breach of Code of Conduct (4.4.2, 4.4.3), breach of Media Policy (4.3 and 4.4), dispute the false claim, and restore the reputation of the affected 4 persons. Alicia did not seek to remediate and account to the affected skaters nor their parents. SISA has also not followed up on Safe Sport’s recommendations. In the past, SISA had been quick to issue warnings or punishment within days of the incident. In this incident, the treatment was different, and from this behaviour, there is an obvious conflict of interest whereby Alicia, in a position of Exco, may have unfairly influenced the responsibility of SISA to the affected individuals and the community it serves. Other repeated signs also point to such preferential treatment and nepotism. The SISA website lists the 4 most senior skaters below Amelia Chua whereas one would expect the order of listing is from most senior followed by junior. Despite feedback to SISA on this issue in July 2021, nothing has been done.

… Strike off Alicia Tan’s nomination as a candidate in the 2021 AGM. She is no longer suitable to represent the community objectively and uphold the values of the association on sportsmanship, integrity and respect.

(d) The Defendant’s purpose for submitting the First Special Resolution Form was to prevent the Claimant from standing for SISA’s Exco at the 2021 AGM.

40 On 17 September 2021, the Defendant (in his capacity as SLSSC’s President) submitted a revised Special Resolution Form (“Second Special Resolution Form”) for the 2021 AGM.

(a) At SISA’s request, the Claimant’s daughter’s name was removed from the Second Special Resolution Form.

(b) The remaining content of the Second Special Resolution Form is similar to the First Special Resolution Form. This is despite the fact that Ms Alison Chan, Ms Elly Tan and Mr Mahipal Singh informed the Defendant during a meeting on 16 September 2021 that the Claimant was not involved in deliberations relating to the Instagram Incident.

(c) The material parts of the Second Special Resolution Form that the Claimant relies on for her claim relating to the Fourth Impugned Publication are reproduced as follows:

The current Honorary Secretary’s daughter made a social media post, where she claimed that 4 National team short track skaters had bullied her. It was untrue, defamatory and damaging to the reputation of the 4 persons. Despite 8 months since reporting of this matter to SISA, SportSG, and Safe Sport, nothing has been done by SISA to address the breach of Code of Conduct (4.4.2, 4.4.3), breach of Media Policy (4.3 and 4.4), dispute the false claim, and re-store the reputation of the affected 4 persons. SISA was remiss in their responsibilities to members, and did not seek to communicate with the affected skaters nor their parents. SISA has also not followed up on Safe Sport’s recommendations. In the past, SISA had been quick to issue warnings or punishment within days of the incident. In this incident, the treatment was different, and from this behaviour, it seems that her presence in the Exco has incapacitated the ability of SISA to act according to the policies established. Other repeated signs also point to such preferential treatment and nepotism. The SISA website lists the 4 most senior skaters (who are also the affected 4 skaters) below the Honorary Secretary’s daughter, whereas one would expect the order of listing is from most senior followed by junior. Despite feedback to SISA on this issue in July 2021, nothing has been done.

… Remove the current Honorary Secretary’s nomination as a candidate for the 2021 AGM as we deem this person ineligible to run due to conflict of interest and unsuitable to represent the best interest of all athletes objectively and uphold the values of the association on sportsmanship, integrity and respect.

(d) Like the First Special Resolution Form, the Defendant’s purpose for submitting the Second Special Resolution Form was to prevent the Claimant from standing for SISA’s Exco at the 2021 AGM.

41 SISA’s Secretariat summarised the operative parts of the First and Second Special Resolution Forms, and circulated them as a special resolution item in the agenda for the 2021 AGM (“2021 AGM Agenda”) in the following terms:

Remove the current Honorary Secretary’s nomination as a candidate for the 2021 AGM due to certain allegations of conflict of interest and unsuitability raised by Snow Leopard Speed Skating Club and the 111.12M Club.

This text embodies the Fifth Impugned Publication and represents the Defendant’s attempt to preclude the Claimant from standing for SISA’s Exco at the 2021 AGM.

42 The 2021 AGM took place via video-conference on 30 September 2021 with 27 attendees (of whom only a handful had voting rights).

Sixth Impugned Publication in September 2021

43 During the 2021 AGM, the Defendant delivered a speech with a PowerPoint presentation supporting his agenda of preventing the Claimant’s re-election to SISA’s Exco (“Sep 2021 Speech”). The Defendant repeated the contents of the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications, and referenced SISA’s handling of the Instagram Incident in support of his suggestion that SISA was providing preferential treatment to the Claimant’s daughter.

44 The material parts of the Sep 2021 Speech that the Claimant relies on for her claim relating to the Sixth Impugned Publication are reproduced as follows:

Now for the current case in question which happened this year in January a child of an EXCO member had posted on Instagram with a photo, drawing and wordings that claimed 4 national team skaters had bullied her.

This photo was from the SEA Games ceremony.

There are two issues to deal with, one is the claim of bullying and the second is the SISA policies were breached.

At this point, one would expect the investigation to be fairly quick, since all previous incidents ranging from 1 to 10 persons took less than 2 months.

The Instagram post and the claim of bullying breached a number of policies which apply to all team athletes … there is also a breach of the SISA Media Policy … SISA’s failure to act exposes the community to potential turbulence … relating to harassment or defamation. However, 8 months since the case was reported, there is no outcome from SISA. Safe Sport was engaged as the independent party to investigate the bullying matter. This was concluded after 3 months in April, since then this matter was swept under the carpet … in my opinion, at an NSA, should have done better.

…

Despite repeated emails between April to August, no replies were made by SISA. Only after the special resolutions were sent in for AGM did the two parents receive a reply from SISA and Sports Singapore.

…

Safe Sport made these two recommendations to Sports School and SISA … So what has been done? Well, Sports School has conducted some workshops for their students. However, SISA has not done anything yet.

…

In addition, I want to emphasise the following concerns. Safe Sport did not get an opportunity to talk to the alleged complainant.

[These words were accompanied by a presentation slide which stated: “The alleged complainant’s mother (ex co member) was the one providing answers on behalf of her daughter to Safe Sport."]

Safe Sport has deferred everything other than the bully issue to SISA. Despite repeated emails asking SISA for action there was no reply. No reply is a consistent observation over the 8 months of this case. … But why is the SISA and the secretariat not responding in any way and want this case to be closed without proper closure?

…

The community is also puzzled why this treatment is continuing elsewhere. In the SISA website, the figure skaters are listed by order of seniority from the most senior to the most junior. However, for short track, the four most senior skaters which are also the same four affected skaters by the Instagram post, they are listed below the alleged complainant right, so that is not consistent. Despite an email in July to inform SISA of this inconsistency, nothing has been done to fix this.

…

There is a consistent observation of double standards and that is very concerning.

…

In conclusion, we table Special Resolutions 1 and 2 because this is a serious matter. A breach of policies happened but nothing was done. This is especially worrying as the most recent case, a related party to an EXCO member is involved. Is a conflict – is this an issue of conflict of interest?

…

Coincidentally and surprisingly, very recently on 22 September, a conflict of interest policy was posted on SISA’s website. We’re informed that this policy was in place since 2013. But mysteriously, this policy was never ever published or made known to members. Why was this done so quietly or discretely without formal announcement? We don’t know what happened behind closed doors or corridor conversations, there is no transparency, there is no consistent application of policies. But the fact speak for itself that the system and the processes have failed the four skaters affected by the Instagram post. We understand that the alleged complainant’s post was found to be untrue, yet the four victims did not receive any closure, any apology, any retraction. If this happened to your child, would you accept that nothing done is acceptable? If the roles were reversed as demonstrated in earlier slides, where SISA administers very quick punishments and your child receives letter of warning, the case is dealt with swiftly, would you accept this double standard? Is this double standard acceptable at an NSA? … This is really about the governance, the systems, the processes of SISA which have mysteriously became dysfunctional as you have seen.

45 The Defendant was again unsuccessful in preventing the Claimant from serving on SISA’s Exco, as the Claimant was re-elected as SISA’s Honorary Secretary from September 2021 to September 2022.

Commencement of proceedings

46 On 27 January 2022, the Claimant’s solicitors issued a letter to the Defendant regarding the Six Impugned Publications, requesting that he apologise, undertake not to repeat similar allegations, and compensate her for damage to her reputation.

47 The Defendant refuted the Claimant’s allegations and refused to apologise, maintaining that the publications were true or true in substance.

48 The Claimant commenced these proceedings on 28 October 2022.

Analytical approach

49 I will analyse the Six Impugned Publications in three stages.

50 First, I will consider whether the Claimant has established a prima facie case of defamation. This requires examining whether: (a) the words referred to the Claimant; (b) the words were published to third parties; and (c) the words are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning. I reproduce [36]-[39] of Golden Season Pte Ltd and others v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd and another [2015] 2 SLR 751 (“Golden Season”) that succinctly sets out the applicable law:

36 A statement is considered to be defamatory if it:

(a) lowers the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally;

(b) causes the plaintiff to be shunned or avoided; or

See Gary Chan Kok Yew & Lee Pey Woan, The Law of Torts in Singapore (Academy Publishing, 2011) at para 12.014.

37 Whether a statement is defamatory is generally determined based on the construction of the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used. As summarised by the Court of Appeal in Chan Cheng Wah Bernard v Koh Sin Chong Freddie [2012] 1 SLR 506 (“Chan Cheng Wah”) at [18], the following guiding principles apply:

(a) the natural and ordinary meaning of a word is that which is conveyed to an ordinary reasonable person;

(b) as the test is objective, the meaning which the defendant intended to convey is irrelevant;

(d) where there are a number of possible interpretations, some of which may be non-defamatory, such a reader will not seize on only the defamatory one;

(e) the ordinary reasonable reader is treated as having read the publication as a whole in determining its meaning, thus “the bane and the antidote must be taken together”; and

(f) the ordinary reasonable reader will take note of the circumstances and manner of the publication.

38 Apart from establishing that the statement is defamatory, it must also be shown that it is the plaintiff who has been defamed by the publication of the statement. There is no need for the plaintiff to be named, but it must be shown that the words would be understood by ordinary people to refer to the plaintiff. The act of publication and reference to the plaintiff are key elements of the tort.

39 Once the above are established, the defendant will be liable for defamation unless he can rely on defences such as justification, qualified privilege or fair comment. I further elaborate on the relevant legal principles specific to each article later on when necessary.

51 Second, for any publications found to be prima facie defamatory, I will examine the Defendant’s defences of justification and qualified privilege.

(a) Justification is an absolute defence that requires the Defendant to prove that the “sting” of the defamatory statement is true (Chan Cheng Wah Bernard v Koh Sin Chong Freddie [2012] 1 SLR 506 (“Chan Cheng Wah”) at [44]; Golden Season at [85]-[86]).

(b) Qualified privilege:

(i) The defence of qualified privilege applies in certain circumstances. In the present case, the Defendant argues that qualified privilege arises because he had an interest or duty, whether legal, social or moral, to communicate the information and the recipients had a corresponding interest or duty to receive the information (Chan Cheng Wah at [86]; Golden Season at [88]-[89]).

(ii) The defence will be defeated if the Defendant acted with malice. Malice will be established if either: (A) the Defendant had knowledge of falsity or where there was recklessness or lack of belief in the defamatory statement; or (B) even though the Defendant may genuinely or honestly believe in the truth of the defamatory statement, his dominant motive was to injure the defendant or some other improper motive (Chan Cheng Wah at [89]-[90]; Golden Season at [92]).

52 Third, I will consider the appropriate remedies for any publications found to be prima facie defamatory where the defences raised by the Defendant do not apply.

The First Impugned Publication

53 The First Impugned Publication relates to defamatory statements in the Defendant’s Petition to gather support for the removal of the Claimant from SISA’s Exco (see [20]-[23] above).

54 I allow the Claimant’s claim, and order the Defendant to pay $40,000 in general damages and $20,000 in aggravated damages relating to the First Impugned Publication for the reasons set out at [55]-[79] below.

The Claimant has established a prima facie case of defamation

55 The Claimant has proven the requisite elements to establish a prima facie case of defamation in respect of the First Impugned Publication.

The publication refers to the Claimant

56 The Defendant accepts that the First Impugned Publication refers to the Claimant.

The publication was published by the Defendant

57 The Defendant published the First Impugned Publication in the following manner:

(a) In a WhatsApp group titled “Short Track Community” with 32 members (“Short Track Chat Group”).

(b) In a WhatsApp group titled “SISA Short Track Team” with approximately 60 members.

(d) By onward sharing (re-publication) from the original recipients to other Skating Community members. In this regard, the Defendant accepts that the Petition was signed by some Figure Skating Community members.

58 The Claimant contends that the First Impugned Publication should also be considered as being published to the general public because it was accessible by any internet user searching for her name together with “ice skating”. However, mere accessibility to material online is insufficient to establish publication. In Zhu Yong Zhen v AIA Singapore Pte Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 478 at [43], the High Court held that actual access of the material on the internet is required to satisfy the requirement of publication.

59 I therefore find that publication was limited to the categories listed at [57] above, as there is no evidence of access by anyone outside these categories.

The publication is defamatory in nature

60 The parties’ pleaded natural and ordinary meaning of the First Impugned Publication is as follows:

	Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning Foot Note 119 SOC_[9].		Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning Foot Note 120 DF_[8].
	(a) The Claimant was not transparent in her management of SISA’s affairs, including in relation to organising events, which has prejudiced SISA’s finances.		(a) The Skating Community felt that the Claimant was not transparent in her management of SISA’s affairs, including in relation to organising events, which has prejudiced SISA’s finances.
	(b) The Claimant was condescending and non-collaborative in her approach towards SISA’s affairs.		(b) The Skating Community felt that the Claimant was condescending and non-collaborative in her approach towards SISA’s affairs.
	(c) The Claimant did not demonstrate care and interest for the Skating Community.		(c) The Skating Community, in particular, the Short Track Community, felt that the Claimant did not demonstrate care and interests for the Skating Community.
	(d) The Claimant was incompetent in managing the budget and expenses involved in the 2019 SEA Trophy which was operated without checks and balances and transparency.		(d) The Skating Community felt that the Claimant was incompetent in managing the budget and expenses involved in the SEA Trophy Competition which was operated without checks and balances and without transparency.
	(e) The engagement style of SISA’s Exco, which was influenced by the Claimant following her election to the Exco, interfered with the work of Coach Chun, and eventually led to Coach Chun’s resignation.		(e) The Skating Community felt that the engagement style of SISA’s Exco which was influenced by the Claimant following her election to the Exco, interfered with the work of Coach Chun, and eventually led to her departure as coach.
	(f) The Claimant’s election to SISA’s Exco has generally been detrimental to SISA and the Skating Community.		(f) The Skating Community felt that SISA’s Exco has generally been detrimental to SISA and the Skating Community.

61 There are two main distinctions between the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning and the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning:

(a) The Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning includes a qualification that the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning reflects the Skating Community’s sentiment. This distinction is immaterial because the focus must be on the substance of the publication – every defamatory statement necessarily arises from someone’s view or sentiment, and cannot exist in a vacuum. Moreover, I do not see how the views expressed can be attributed to the entire Skating Community, when the Defendant’s views merely echo those of the Dissenting Segment.

(b) Item (f) of the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning suggests that the First Impugned Publication questions the effect of the Claimant’s election to SISA’s Exco, whereas item (f) of the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning suggests that no such attribution is made to the Claimant. Based on a plain reading of the First Impugned Publication as a whole, I agree with the Claimant that the focus is on the effect of the Claimant’s election to SISA’s Exco, rather than the general conduct of SISA’s Exco. This accords with the purpose of the Petition, which was to remove the Claimant from SISA’s Exco (see [20] above), and the fact that the Petition details the Dissenting Segment’s grievances as something that arose “[s]ince the appointment of the [Claimant] at the 2017 AGM and her subsequent re-appointment as the Honorary Secretary at the 2018 AGM” (see [21] above).

62 I therefore find the ordinary meaning of the First Impugned Publication (based on an ordinary and reasonable Skating Community member) accords with the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning, namely:

(a) The Claimant was not transparent in her management of SISA’s affairs, including in relation to organising events, which has prejudiced SISA’s finances.

(b) The Claimant was condescending and non-collaborative in her approach towards SISA’s affairs.

(d) The Claimant was incompetent in managing the budget and expenses involved in the 2019 SEA Trophy, which was operated without checks and balances and transparency.

(e) The engagement style of SISA’s Exco, which was influenced by the Claimant following her election to the Exco, interfered with the work of Coach Chun, and eventually led to Coach Chun’s resignation.

(f) The Claimant’s election to SISA’s Exco has generally been detrimental to SISA and the Skating Community.

63 The First Impugned Publication suggests impropriety in the Claimant’s conduct, and is defamatory as it would lower the Claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, cause her to be shunned or avoided, and expose her to hatred, contempt or ridicule.

64 For completeness, I am unable to agree with the Defendant’s argument that the First Impugned Publication was not defamatory because it was only published to Skating Community members who would understand the First Impugned Publication as conveying the “views and concerns held by the skating community” and whose perception of the Claimant would remain unimpacted.

(a) The views expressed were those of the Dissenting Segment and not the rest of the Skating Community, from whom the Defendant was trying to gather “consensus as to views expressed [in the Petition]” and whose perception of the Claimant would have been impacted by the defamatory statements.

(b) I am not persuaded by the Defendant’s suggestion that the First Impugned Publication would not be defamatory because the entire Skating Community would perceive its contents with a degree of fair-minded scepticism since it was in the form of a petition. The Defendant is essentially arguing that he can avoid liability for his defamatory statement because he issued it under the cover of a petition, which cannot be correct.

(c) Further, unlike the situation in Terrence Fernandez v Lim Shao Ying Genevieve and another [2020] SGHC 278, which the Defendant relies on, the Skating Community is not a management body that would have perceived the contents of the Petition (First Impugned Publication) in the same light as a workplace complaint.

The defences of justification and qualified privilege do not apply

The defence of justification

65 The defence of justification does not apply to the ordinary meaning set out at [62] above, which can be classified into three categories:

(a) “IP1 Management Style Category” relating to [62(a)]-[62(c)] and [62(f)] above. The Defendant has not proven the truth of the “sting” for this category.

(i) There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Claimant lacked transparency. The Defendant relies on the Claimant’s failure to disclose the budget for the 2019 SEA Trophy to both SISA’s Exco and the Skating Community, and the budget for the 2019 Asian Trophy to SISA’s Exco as the basis for this assertion.

(A) Regarding disclosure of the budget for the 2019 SEA Trophy to SISA’s Exco, the Claimant has testified that the budget was reviewed and approved during an Exco meeting on 31 October 2018 by the three Exco members in attendance (including the Claimant), and that the remaining two Exco member who were unable to attend had access to the documents discussed. Further, an updated budget was circulated to every Exco member on 6 December 2018 via email. In this regard, the Defendant has not pointed to any evidential basis showing that the approval of the budget was invalid.

(B) As to disclosure of the budget for the 2019 SEA Trophy to the Skating Community, the Defendant has not pointed to any evidential basis showing that the Claimant was legally obligated to disclose such information to the Skating Community or to involve and consult with the Defendant and the Dissenting Segment on every Exco decision.

(C) In respect of the disclosure of the budget for the 2019 Asian Trophy to SISA’s Exco, the Claimant has explained that there was no need to table the budget for Exco approval as SISA decided not to organise the event. It is therefore unreasonable for the Defendant to expect the Claimant to undertake such work and present the budget for an event that was not going to take place.

(ii) There is no evidence that the Claimant was condescending and non-collaborative.

(A) The Defendant confirmed during cross-examination that he did not set out any details of the Claimant’s alleged condescending behaviour in his own Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief (“AEIC”).

(B) I also give no weight to Dr Kam’s evidence surrounding the alleged condescending tone used by the Claimant. Dr Kam’s evidence related to the Claimant’s tone during discussions amongst SISA’s Exco members. She was unable to give any concrete examples of the purported “handful” of such incidents, aside from one incident that involved an email sent by the Claimant relating to SISA’s former figure skating director, Ms Robi Chalmers. Further, while Dr Kam suggested that SISA’s emails and communications became “more unfriendly and high-handed”, she did not produce examples of such emails or communications.

(iii) There is insufficient evidence to show that the Claimant did not demonstrate care and interest for the Skating Community. The only instance that the Defendant could point to was the Claimant’s inability to attend the full duration of the Oct 2018 Open Forum. However, the Claimant has explained that she could not attend the entire forum because she had to attend church (which was non-negotiable for her) and had a pre-arranged lunch to celebrate her daughter’s and sister-in-law’s birthdays. I therefore cannot see how this isolated event demonstrates the Claimant’s lack of care and interest for the Skating Community.

(iv) There is insufficient evidence to show that the Claimant’s election to SISA’s Exco has been detrimental to SISA and the Skating Community. Crucially, the Claimant has adduced uncontradicted evidence showing that SISA’s decisions were made collectively by SISA’s Exco, and not unilaterally by the Claimant. This is apparent from the AEIC of SISA’s current President Ms Alison Chan which states:

… all SISA Exco members are given an opportunity to consider and vote on matters arising for decision by the SISA Exco before the SISA Secretariat implements those decisions. Accordingly, all decisions made by the SISA Exco are made collectively. In my experience, the SISA Exco works as a team and no single individual makes important decisions on behalf of SISA …

(b) “IP1 Financial Management Category” relating to [62(a)] and [62(d)] above. The Defendant has not proven the truth of the “sting” for this category.

(i) There is no evidence that the Claimant prejudiced SISA’s finances. SISA’s budget deficits for the financial years ending 31 March 2017 (“FY2017”) and 31 March 2018 (“FY2018”) were not caused by the Claimant. The Defendant accepts that the Claimant was not even involved in SISA’s Exco until September 2017 and could not have been responsible for the budget deficit for FY2017. He also accepts that there is no evidence that the Claimant was responsible for any expenses contributing to SISA’s budget deficit for FY2018.

(ii) There is insufficient evidence demonstrating that the Claimant was incompetent in managing the budget and expenses for the 2019 SEA Trophy held in January 2019.

(A) The decision to host the 2019 SEA Trophy was made collectively by SISA’s Exco. This was tabled during an Exco meeting on 21 April 2018 when the Defendant’s wife, Dr Kam, was still part of SISA’s Exco.

(B) The budget and planning of the 2019 SEA Trophy were handled by both Ms Sonja Chan (SISA’s then President) and the Claimant, rather than by the Claimant alone.

(C) The evidence also shows that the 2019 SEA Trophy generated a surplus of approximately $4,500 for SISA, compared with a surplus of less than $1,000 for the 2017 SEA Trophy and a surplus of $5,000 for the 2018 SEA Trophy.

(iii) There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Claimant lacked transparency in managing the budget and expenses for the 2019 SEA Trophy for the reasons set out at [65(a)(i)] above.

(c) “IP1 Coach Departure Category” relating to [62(e)] above. The Defendant has not proven the truth of the “sting” for this category as the Defendant has not shown that Coach Chun resigned because of SISA’s Exco’s engagement style that was influenced by the Claimant. The evidence shows that Coach Chun decided not to renew her contract with SISA, with a key point of contention being her unwillingness to accept SISA’s proposed job scope and key performance indicators, which were approved by SISA’s Exco (see [17] above) and not unilaterally decided by the Claimant.

66 Further, the fact that the Petition was signed by others does not make the First Impugned Publication true – it merely shows that others may have shared the Defendant’s misguided view. In this regard, the Defendant’s attempt to excuse his conduct by referencing what “the Skating Community felt” in the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning lacks merit, as it would create the illogical outcome whereby one could avoid liability by simply getting others to agree with a defamatory statement.

67 Likewise, the Defendant’s purported intention of using the First Impugned Publication to “drive positive change in the sport” is irrelevant. The defence of justification is not a test of whether the ends justify the means. As set out at [51(a)] above, it requires the Defendant to prove that the “sting” of the defamatory statement is true.

68 For completeness, the Defendant’s reference to the Claimant’s involvement in the 2018 Funding Policy Change does not assist his defence of justification. The evidence shows that: (a) the 2018 Funding Policy Change was initiated by Mr David Chandra (SISA’s then Honorary Secretary) in June 2018; (b) the Defendant’s wife, Dr Kam (SISA’s then Exco Committee Member) had endorsed and encouraged participation at regional competitions; (c) the Defendant knew that it was Mr David Chandra who drove the 2018 Funding Policy Change; and (d) the Claimant did not participate in SISA’s Exco’s voting process to approve the 2018 Funding Policy Change. It is therefore perplexing that the Defendant blames the Claimant for the 2018 Funding Policy Change, and I do not see how it justifies the “sting” in respect of the IP1 Management Style Category, IP1 Financial Management Category or IP1 Coach Departure Category.

The defence of qualified privilege

69 The Defendant contends that the defence of qualified privilege applies because he was a member of SISA and the President of SLSSC, and had an interest in communicating the information in the First Impugned Publication to the Skating Community.

70 I find that the Defendant is not entitled to rely on the defence of qualified privilege as he had no interest or duty to communicate the information in the First Impugned Publication to all of the recipients listed at [57] above, nor did all the recipients have a corresponding interest or duty to receive the information.

(a) The Defendant is SLSSC’s President. He is neither the President of SISA nor one of SISA’s other Ordinary Club Members.

(b) While the Defendant may have an interest or duty in communicating information to SLSSC’s members and in being their “mouthpiece”, he owes no such interest or duty to the entire Skating Community.

(c) As the First Impugned Publication was published to Skating Community members beyond SLSSC’s members, the Defendant cannot avail himself of the defence of qualified privilege.

71 Even if I am incorrect in my analysis and the defence of qualified privilege applied, the defence would be defeated as the Defendant acted with malice.

72 First, the Defendant acted with a dominant motive to injure the Claimant or an improper motive. This is apparent from the Defendant’s motive of removing the Claimant from SISA’s Exco (“Exco Removal Vendetta”), which manifested before the First Impugned Publication and persisted thereafter.

(a) The Defendant’s attack on the Claimant was personal. He accepts that he did not want the Claimant to be on SISA’s Exco because “her goals and the community’s goals were completely different than when [he] first supported her to become appointed to [SISA’s Exco]”. The extent of his resentment towards the Claimant is evident from how he described her as an “ungrateful bitch” and a “pig”.

(b) This resentment manifested in the Exco Removal Vendetta – the Defendant has over the years informed various parties that the Claimant should not be involved in SISA’s Exco. For instance:

(i) In November 2018, the Defendant informed the Claimant’s husband, Mr Jonas Chua, that he should advise the Claimant to resign from SISA’s Exco (see [72(c)(i)] below).

(ii) On 11 November 2018, the Defendant sent a WhatsApp message in the Short Track Chat Group stating:

[The Claimant] is responsible for all of the nonsense and she needs to be taken down …

We have created a petition that needs 100% of your support to give the clear mandate for SISA president to hold an EGM to vote [the Claimant] out.

(iii) On 7 December 2018, the Defendant sent a WhatsApp message in the Short Track Chat Group stating:

… The community mandate of ‘Alicia out and Coach back in’ was delivered in the first meeting. Going into the second meeting, we need to show determination + unity on the community mandate and that this is successful before SEA Trophy.

(iv) At a meeting on 16 September 2021 with Ms Alison Chan, Ms Elly Tan and Mr Mahipal Singh, the Defendant kept insisting that the Claimant should not run for SISA’s Exco during the 2021 AGM. I accept the evidence of Ms Alison Chan, Ms Elly Tan and Mr Mahipal Singh, which remained unshaken during the trial, and note that it is consistent with the Defendant’s evidence that he had suggested that the Claimant should focus on looking after her daughter rather than being involved in SISA’s Exco.

(v) For completeness, I have not given any weight to Ms Alison Chan’s evidence that she recalled the Defendant saying that “he would never be satisfied until [the Claimant] stepped down from the SISA Exco” at the end of the meeting on 16 September 2021. While Ms Alison Chan recalls hearing this, the audio recording produced by the Defendant does not reflect such a statement, and it is more appropriate for me not to give weight to the alleged statement. In any event, my exclusion of this evidence was immaterial since there was an abundance of evidence proving the Exco Removal Vendetta.

(i) The First Impugned Publication (ie. the Petition) states that it would be used to “perform a replacement of the Hon. Secretary role [held by the Claimant]”, and the Defendant submitted it to SISA to seek the Claimant’s resignation or removal from SISA’s Exco. The Defendant’s wife, Dr Kam, testified that the Petition served the Dissenting Segment’s aim of seeking revenge against the Claimant. Further, shortly after the Petition was issued, the Defendant informed the Claimant’s husband, Mr Jonas Chua, that he should advise the Claimant to resign from SISA’s Exco and went so far as to express his view that the Claimant’s daughter would otherwise be ostracised and have to eat without the company of her peers.

(ii) The Second Impugned Publication (ie. the Annotated Google Doc) was used to support the Defendant’s bid to oust SISA’s Exco (including the Claimant) at the 2019 EGM (see [24]-[29] above).

(iii) The Third and Fourth Impugned Publications (ie. the First and Second Special Resolution Forms), which culminated in the Fifth Impugned Publication (ie. the 2021 AGM Agenda), were aimed at preventing the Claimant from contesting the Honorary Secretary position at the 2021 AGM (see [39]-[41] above). Crucially, the Second Special Resolution Form was submitted by the Defendant even though he had already been informed by Ms Alison Chan, Ms Elly Tan and Mr Mahipal Singh that the Claimant was not involved in deliberations relating to the Instagram Incident (see [40(b)] above).

(iv) The Sixth Impugned Publication (ie. the Sep 2021 Speech) was made to support the Defendant’s agenda of preventing the Claimant from being re-elected onto SISA’s Exco during the 2021 AGM (see [43]-[44] above).

(d) The Defendant’s pursuit of the Exco Removal Vendetta is seen in the boycott of volunteers for the 2019 SEA Trophy staged by the Defendant and the Dissenting Segment.

(i) The 2019 SEA Trophy was organised by SISA and held in Singapore in early January 2019.

(ii) In November 2018 and December 2018, the Defendant and some members of the Dissenting Segment who had originally volunteered to help with the 2019 SEA Trophy decided to withdraw their assistance.

(iii) The Defendant’s wife, Dr Kam confirmed that one of the purposes of this boycott was to put pressure on SISA to remove the Claimant from SISA’s Exco.

(e) The Exco Removal Vendetta is consistent with the views of the Dissenting Segment, whom the Defendant saw himself as representing. This included:

(i) The Defendant’s wife, Dr Kam, who indicated that the Dissenting Segment was “really unhappy with [the Claimant] who was perceived as the short track representative in the exco, [and] was not helping in voicing out the interests of the short track teams”, and whose goal was to get the Claimant removed from SISA’s Exco.

(ii) Mr Tan Eng Kong, who wanted the Claimant (who he referred to as a “bitch”, “black sheep” and “pig” ) removed from SISA’s Exco.

(iii) Mr Mike Koh, who referred to the Claimant as a “fatty pig” and “asshole”, because he was apparently angry with and disliked the Claimant.

(iv) Mr David Chandra, whose “mission” was to remove the Claimant from SISA’s Exco. Ironically, Mr David Chandra was the person who initiated the 2018 Funding Policy Change that the Dissenting Segment was displeased with (see [13], [14] and [68] above). However, he subsequently decided not to follow-through with the 2018 Funding Policy Change and resigned from SISA’s Exco, and thereafter played a part in encouraging the Defendant’s Exco Removal Vendetta.

(f) The Exco Removal Vendetta is also consistent with the fact that the Defendant and the Dissenting Segment were unable to get one of their own to successfully contest an election against the Claimant, which led to the Defendant’s use of the Six Impugned Publications as a means to prevent the Claimant from serving on SISA’s Exco.

(g) To further support the Exco Removal Vendetta, the Defendant orchestrated a mass absence from a training session at the ice rink on 23 January 2019 by the Dissenting Segment’s children so that he could take a photograph to serve as proof of SISA’s purported preferential treatment of the Claimant’s daughter.

(h) In light of the above, I find the Defendant’s assertion that he had no intention to injure or “cause disrepute to the Claimant” unbelievable. His actions went far beyond what he describes as “common animosity”.

(i) Moreover, the Defendant’s purported intention to “drive positive change in the sport” and “address parents’ concerns” is ancillary to, and does not detract from, my finding that he acted with a dominant motive to injure the Claimant or with an improper motive.

73 Second, the Defendant had knowledge of falsity or was reckless as to the truth of the material parts of the First Impugned Publication.

(a) The Defendant argues that he was not reckless because he was echoing the Dissenting Segment’s views (particularly those of Mr David Chandra, who he apparently deferred to) and that it was fair and reasonable for him to believe them to be true.

(b) This misses the point. The crux is that the Defendant did not make any inquiries to ascertain the truth. For example, he conceded during cross-examination that he did not bother to find out whether the Claimant was responsible for any expenses contributing to SISA’s budget deficit for FY2018 (which relates to the IP1 Financial Management Category).

(c) His failure to take steps to ascertain or verify the truth of the First Impugned Publication before publishing it is sufficient to constitute malice (Lee Hsien Loong v Xu Yuan Chen and another suit [2022] 3 SLR 924 at [88]; Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang and another matter [2024] 5 SLR 194 at [67]).

(d) In this regard, I do not accept the Defendant’s argument that it was reasonable for him to blindly rely on what Mr David Chandra purportedly told him, particularly as Mr David Chandra shared the Defendant’s animosity towards the Claimant (see [72(e)(iv)] above) and was therefore not an objective source.

Remedies

74 The Claimant seeks $50,000 in general damages and $25,000 in aggravated damages relating to the First Impugned Publication. The Defendant suggests that nominal damages of $500 is reasonable.

75 An award of general damages for defamation serves three purposes: first, as a consolation to the Claimant for the distress suffered; second, to repair the harm to her reputation; and third, to vindicate her reputation (Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor [2001] 1 SLR(R) 86 at [53]). The Court may take into account the following factors in quantifying general damages (Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal [2010] 4 SLR 357 at [7]-[8]; Chan Cheng Wah at [23]):

(a) the nature and gravity of the defamation;

(b) the conduct, position and standing of the Claimant and the Defendant;

(d) the natural indignation of the Court at the injury caused to the Claimant;

(e) the conduct of the Defendant from the time the defamatory statement is published to the moment of the verdict;

(f) the failure to apologise and retract the defamatory statement;

(g) the presence of malice; and

(h) the deterrent effect of the award.

76 The Court may also award aggravated damages, taking into account the following (Lee Hsien Loong v Xu Yuan Chen [2022] 3 SLR 924 at [68]):

(a) whether the Defendant raises a plea of justification that is bound to fail;

(b) persistence of a prolonged or hostile cross-examination of the Claimant;

(d) whether the matter was conducted in a way to attract publicity;

(e) persecution of the Claimant by other means; and

(f) malice.

77 I find that an award of $40,000 in general damages is fair and reasonable, taking into account the following:

(a) The nature and gravity of the defamatory statements in the First Impugned Publication, which included allegations of impropriety in the Claimant’s conduct (see [62]-[63] above).

(b) The Claimant’s standing in the Skating Community, where she has served on SISA’s Exco since September 2017 (see [6] above); and in the wider community, where she serves as a grassroots leader, church leader and board member of the Dyslexia Association of Singapore.

(d) The extent of publication of the First Impugned Publication, which was limited to the Skating Community, and did not extend to the general public as contended by the Claimant (see [57]-[58] above).

78 I also find that an award of $20,000 in aggravated damages is fair and reasonable, taking into account the following:

(a) The Defendant’s maintenance of his plea of justification, which was bound to fail for the reasons set out at [65]-[68] above.

(b) The Defendant’s failure to apologise, despite the Claimant’s request (see [46]-[47] above).

79 This award of general damages and aggravated damages is reasonable when compared to the higher award of general damages of $80,000 and aggravated damages of $40,000 in Jasmin Nisban v Chan Boon Siang and others [2023] SGDC 158, which involved defamatory statements against the Honorary Treasurer of the Singapore Chess Federation containing accusations of sexual misconduct.

80 Accordingly, I allow the Claimant’s claim, and order the Defendant to pay $40,000 in general damages and $20,000 in aggravated damages relating to the First Impugned Publication.

The Second Impugned Publication

81 The Second Impugned Publication relates to defamatory statements in the Annotated Google Doc which the Defendant created to provide the Skating Community with a platform to address perceived inaccuracies in SISA’s 2019 EGM Letter (see [24]-[29] above).

82 I allow the Claimant’s claim, and order the Defendant to pay $40,000 in general damages and $20,000 in aggravated damages relating to the Second Impugned Publication for the reasons set out at [83]-[109] below.

The Claimant has established a prima facie case of defamation

83 The Claimant has proven the requisite elements to establish a prima facie case of defamation in respect of the Second Impugned Publication.

The publication refers to the Claimant

84 The Defendant accepts that the Second Impugned Publication refers to the Claimant.

The publication was published by the Defendant

85 The parties agree that the Second Impugned Publication was published to third parties.

86 However, the Defendant argues that he should not be responsible for the publication because he was merely the creator and administrator of the Annotated Google Doc, and was not the author of the annotations and comments giving rise to the Claimant’s claim for defamation.

87 This appears to be the first reported case in Singapore dealing with liability for the publication of a collaborative online document setting out defamatory content posted by third parties.

88 Counsel for both parties were unable to locate any foreign cases discussing the issue, and the closest scenarios to consider related to:

(a) the position adopted in a few jurisdictions relating to the liability of internet platform providers for defamatory content posted by third parties; and

(b) the position adopted by New Zealand relating to the liability of the host of a social media page for defamatory content posted by third parties.

89 The English, Hong Kong and Irish Courts share a central theme that an internet platform provider can be liable as a publisher of defamatory statements made by third parties if two criteria are met: first, the defendant must have knowledge of the defamatory statements (“Knowledge Criteria”); and second, the defendant must have the ability to control and remove the defamatory statements from the platform (“Control Criteria”).

(a) The English Court of Appeal in Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] 1 WLR 2151 (“Tamiz”) determined that a blog platform provider could potentially be liable as a secondary publisher of defamatory statements made by third parties if it knew of such content on its platform yet failed to remove them within a reasonable time.

(i) Tamiz involved allegedly defamatory statements posted anonymously on a blog hosted on the defendant’s platform. Upon receiving the claimant’s complaint, the defendant took five weeks to forward the complaint to the anonymous blogger, who then removed the content within three days.

(ii) The Court of Appeal drew an important distinction between two periods: before the defendant knew of the allegedly defamatory statements, and after such knowledge was acquired. The Court of Appeal’s reasoning was founded on the principle in Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818, where it was held that allowing defamatory statements to remain displayed after becoming aware of them could constitute an inference of association with, or responsibility for, their continued presence. The Court of Appeal in Tamiz likened a blog hosting platform to a noticeboard controlled by the defendant, who could remove allegedly defamatory statements it was aware of.

(iii) The Court of Appeal’s findings emerged from the defendant’s application to set aside an order permitting the claimant to serve proceedings on the defendant in the United States of America. While the Court of Appeal found that the defendant could potentially be liable as a secondary publisher of the allegedly defamatory statements, it ultimately set aside the order permitting service on the basis that any damage to the claimant’s reputation would have been trivial and it would have been an abuse of process to allow the claim to be pursued.

(b) The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd [2013] 5 HKC 253 (“Oriental Press”) held that an internet forum provider could be a main publisher of defamatory statements made by third parties if it knew or could easily know of the gist or substance of the content on its platform, and had a realistic ability to control and prevent their publication.

(i) Oriental Press involved three sets of allegedly defamatory statements posted on an internet forum on the defendant’s platform. The defendant promptly removed two sets within hours of notification (“Prompt Removal Sets”), but took more than eight months to remove the last set (“Delayed Removal Set”).

(ii) The trial judge found the defendant liable for defamation in respect of the Delayed Removal Set but not the Prompt Removal Sets. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, which was then considered by the Court of Final Appeal.

(iii) The Court of Final Appeal found that the defendant was not a main publisher of the defamatory statements because it lacked both knowledge of and control over the content before posting. Instead, the defendant was considered a subordinate publisher from the outset, and avoided liability in respect of the Prompt Removal Sets through the defence of innocent dissemination as it lacked knowledge of the defamatory statements despite taking reasonable care, and took prompt action upon notification.

(iv) The Court of Final Appeal rejected the English Court of Appeal’s approach in Tamiz of treating internet platforms like a physical noticeboard, holding instead that internet platform providers are publishers by nature of their business, which encourages the posting and publication of content.

(c) The Irish Court of Appeal in Gilroy and another v O'Leary and another [2025] IECA 42 (“Gilroy”) referred to Tamiz and recognised that it is arguable that a video platform provider could be liable as a secondary publisher of defamatory statements made by third parties if it knew of such content on its platform yet failed to remove them within a reasonable time.

(i) Gilroy involved an allegedly defamatory video posted on YouTube. The plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the person who posted the video and were later refused permission by the High Court to join Google Ireland Limited (the host of the YouTube platform) as a defendant. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision and allowed Google Ireland Limited to be added as a defendant.

(ii) When considering whether the plaintiffs’ claim against Google Ireland Limited was time-barred, the Court of Appeal explored the possibility of adopting the position in Tamiz, without taking a definitive position on the issue, which was not necessary given the nature of the application before it.

90 Although these cases involved the liability of internet platform providers, I see no reason why the legal principles therein should not apply to creators and administrators of collaborative online documents. This is particularly so since the latter would have a more direct interest in the content in question compared to internet platform providers, whose interests are more detached. While the approaches adopted by each jurisdiction have their nuances and differences, I have confined my analysis to the central theme identified at [89] above, which is sufficient to dispose of the issues in this case.

91 The principles under the central theme also align with the approach taken by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Murray v Wishart [2015] 3 LRC 79 (“Murray”), which determined that the host of a social media page could be liable as a publisher of defamatory statements made by third parties if he had actual knowledge of such content and failed to remove it within a reasonable time in circumstances leading to an inference that the host was taking responsibility for the comments.

(a) Murray involved allegedly defamatory statements posted by third parties on a Facebook page created by the first defendant to convince people to boycott a book written by the claimant. While there were other allegedly defamatory statements made by the defendants, those are not relevant for present purposes.

(b) The High Court decided not to strike out the claim against the first defendant in relation to the third parties’ posts on the Facebook page as it was arguable that he could be liable for either having actual knowledge of the allegedly defamatory statements, or having ought to have known of them.

(c) On appeal, the Court of Appeal determined that the first defendant would need to have actual knowledge of the allegedly defamatory statements for a claim to exist and that it was not sufficient that he simply ought to have known of them. The claimant was permitted to amend his pleadings to properly set out the first defendant’s actual knowledge of the allegedly defamatory statements and failure to remove them within a reasonable time.

92 Applying these principles, the Defendant should be treated as the publisher of the Annotated Google Doc because:

(a) The Knowledge Criteria is satisfied.

(i) While the Defendant may not have written the annotations and comments in question, he provided the platform for their publication. He was the creator and administrator of the Annotated Google Doc, which comprised: a reproduction of the 2019 EGM Letter; and annotations and comments written by third parties, who he invited to provide responses and comments to the 2019 EGM Letter.

(ii) It is reasonable to expect the Defendant to have known that the annotations and comments would include potentially defamatory statements because the Google Doc was meant to serve the Defendant’s purpose of preventing the Claimant from serving on SISA’s Exco.

(iii) Further, the Defendant allowed the Annotated Google Doc to remain online and accessible by third parties even though he was aware of the statements set out at [29] above.

(b) The Control Criteria is satisfied because the Defendant was the creator and administrator of the Annotated Google Doc, and could have edited or deleted any defamatory statements posted by third parties.

The extent of publication

93 The parties agree that the Second Impugned Publication was published to Skating Community members.

94 Like the First Impugned Publication (see [58] above), the Claimant asserts that the Second Impugned Publication should be treated as being published to the general public because it was accessible by any internet user.

95 As there is no evidence that the Second Impugned Publication was accessed by anyone outside the Skating Community, I find that publication was limited to the Skating Community.

The publication is defamatory in nature

96 The parties’ pleaded natural and ordinary meaning of the Second Impugned Publication is as follows:

	Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning Foot Note 253 SOC_[15].		Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning Foot Note 254 DF_[18]-[19].
	(a) The Claimant had dishonestly and improperly used her position to influence SISA’s Exco in order to obtain unfair advantages in terms of preferential treatment and preferential access to SISA’s funds for her daughter (including funds relating to her daughter’s participation in the 2018 Asian Trophy).		(a) The Claimant had used her position to influence SISA’s Exco in order to obtain unfair advantages in terms of preferential treatment and preferential access to SISA’s funds for her daughter (including funds relating to her daughter’s participation in the 2018 Asian Trophy).
	(b) The Claimant had breached her duties, or otherwise abused her position, as a member of SISA’s Exco, by voting on decisions in which she was in a conflict of interest position.		(b) The Claimant had breached her duties, or otherwise abused her position, as a member of SISA’s Exco, by voting on decisions in which she had a conflict of interest.

97 The sole distinction between the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning and the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning lies in the Claimant’s attribution of dishonesty or impropriety to the underlying conduct at item (a) of the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning. This distinction is immaterial as the underlying conduct in the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning necessarily suggests some form of dishonest or improper behaviour, and both the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning and the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning are ultimately identical in substance.

98 I therefore adopt the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning as the ordinary meaning of the Second Impugned Publication, namely:

(a) The Claimant had used her position to influence SISA’s Exco in order to obtain unfair advantages in terms of preferential treatment and preferential access to SISA’s funds for her daughter (including funds relating to her daughter’s participation in the 2018 Asian Trophy).

(b) The Claimant had breached her duties, or otherwise abused her position, as a member of SISA’s Exco, by voting on decisions in which she had a conflict of interest.

99 Based on this ordinary meaning, the Second Impugned Publication is defamatory as it would lower the Claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, particularly since it carries an imputation of dishonesty and impropriety.

The defences of justification and qualified privilege do not apply

The defence of justification

100 The defence of justification does not apply to the ordinary meaning set out at [98] above, which can be classified into two categories:

(a) “IP2 Preferential Treatment Category” relating to [98(a)] above. The Defendant has not proven the truth of the “sting” for this category as the evidence shows that the 2018 Funding Policy Change was not initiated by the Claimant, who did not participate in SISA’s Exco’s voting process to approve the change (see [68] above). Further, participation at the 2018 Asian Trophy was open to all members from the Short Track Community, and the Claimant’s daughter’s selection was based on a ballot conducted by SISA’s Secretariat (see [13] above). In this regard, there is no evidence that the Claimant interfered with the ballot or selection process.

(b) “IP2 Conflict of Interest Category” relating to [98(b)] above. The Defendant has not proven the truth of the “sting” for this category as the evidence shows that the Claimant did not participate in SISA’s Exco’s voting process to approve the 2018 Funding Policy Change (see [68] above), or in the ballot that resulted in her daughter’s selection for the 2018 Asian Trophy (see [13] above). Critically, SISA’s Exco expressly explained in the 2019 EGM Letter that the Claimant abstained from decisions that might result in a conflict of interest.

101 In addition, I see no logic in the following points raised by the Defendant:

(a) The Defendant argues that the Second Impugned Publication cannot be defamatory because it contains “perceptions and/or views held [by the Dissenting Segment]” rather than “absolute or definitive statements about [the Claimant]”. This makes no sense. As mentioned at [61(a)] above, every defamatory statement necessarily arises from someone’s view or sentiment, and cannot exist in a vacuum.

(b) The Defendant suggests that the defence of justification is met because “members of the skating community were justified in perceiving and/or taking the view [in the Annotated Google Doc]”. This also makes no sense. As set out at [51(a)] above, the defence of justification requires the Defendant to prove that the “sting” of the defamatory statement is true.

The defence of qualified privilege

102 The Defendant argues that the defence of qualified privilege applies because he was SLSSC’s President, and had an interest in gathering the Skating Community’s views on the 2019 EGM Letter in the Annotated Google Doc and communicating them to the Skating Community.

103 I find that the Defendant had no interest or duty to communicate the information in the Second Impugned Publication to the entire Skating Community, nor did all the recipients have a corresponding interest or duty to receive the information. Like the First Impugned Publication (see [70] above), the Second Impugned Publication was published to Skating Community members beyond SLSSC’s members, and the Defendant cannot rely on the defence of qualified privilege.

104 Even if I am incorrect in my analysis and the defence of qualified privilege applied, the defence would be defeated as the Defendant acted with malice.

105 First, the Defendant acted with a dominant motive to injure the Claimant or an improper motive for the reasons set out at [72] above (which relate to the Exco Removal Vendetta).

106 Second, the Defendant had knowledge of falsity or was reckless as to the truth of the material parts of the Second Impugned Publication.

(a) In respect of the IP2 Preferential Treatment Category, the Defendant made no inquiries to ascertain the truth despite knowing that it was Mr David Chandra who initiated the 2018 Funding Policy Change and that his wife had encouraged participation at regional competitions (see [68] above). The Defendant’s reliance on the impact of the 2018 Funding Policy Change on Coach Chun’s ability to attend international competitions (see [13] and [17] above) and the warning letters issued against several Short Track Community skaters who breached ISU’s rules by wearing T-shirts and holding a large placard stating “Thank you Coach Chun” at a competition (see [19] above) does not excuse his conduct. His dissatisfaction did not remove the need to ascertain or verify the truth of the Second Impugned Publication before publishing it (see [73(c)] above), particularly since he knew that the Claimant did not initiate the 2018 Funding Policy Change.

(b) As to the IP2 Conflict of Interest Category, the Defendant made no inquiries to ascertain the truth despite SISA’s Exco having explained in the 2019 EGM Letter that the Claimant abstained from decisions that might result in a conflict of interest (see [100(b)] above). Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, this is not a situation where “Any attempts to verify the truth … would likely be futile” – his distrust of the response does not amount to futility.

Remedies

107 The Claimant seeks $50,000 in general damages and $25,000 in aggravated damages relating to the Second Impugned Publication. The Defendant suggests that nominal damages of $500 is reasonable.

108 I find that an award of $40,000 in general damages is fair and reasonable, taking into account the following:

(a) The nature and gravity of the defamatory statements in the Second Impugned Publication, which included allegations of dishonesty and impropriety in the Claimant’s conduct (see [98]-[99] above).

(b) The Claimant’s standing in the Skating Community (see [77(b)] above).

(d) The extent of publication of the Second Impugned Publication, which was limited to the Skating Community, and did not extend to the general public as contended by the Claimant (see [93]-[95] above).

109 I also find that an award of $20,000 in aggravated damages is fair and reasonable, taking into account the following:

(a) The Defendant’s maintenance of his plea of justification, which was bound to fail for the reasons set out at [100]-[101] above.

(b) The Defendant’s failure to apologise, despite the Claimant’s request (see [46]-[47] above).

110 Accordingly, I allow the Claimant’s claim, and order the Defendant to pay $40,000 in general damages and $20,000 in aggravated damages relating to the Second Impugned Publication.

The Third and Fourth Impugned Publications

111 The Third and Fourth Impugned Publications relate to statements in the First and Second Special Resolution Forms submitted by the Defendant to prevent the Claimant from standing for SISA’s Exco at the 2021 AGM (see [38]-[40] above).

112 I disallow the Claimant’s claim in respect of the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications.

The Claimant has not established a prima facie case of defamation

113 While the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications refer to the Claimant and were published to third parties, they were not defamatory in light of the ordinary meaning and the extent of publication.

The publications refer to the Claimant

114 The Defendant accepts that the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications refer to the Claimant.

The publications were published by the Defendant

115 The parties agree that the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications were published to third parties – they were originally sent to SISA’s Secretariat, who then forwarded them to SISA’s Exco and SISA’s legal advisor.

116 I agree with the Claimant that the Defendant should be responsible for SISA’s Secretariat’s re-publication of the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications to SISA’s Exco, as this was a foreseeable consequence of his original publication to SISA’s Secretariat (Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin [1997] 3 SLR(R) 46 at [130]).

The publications are not defamatory in nature

117 The parties’ pleaded natural and ordinary meaning of the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications is as follows:

	Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning Foot Note 283 SOC_[26].		Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning Foot Note 284 DF_[33].
	(a) The Claimant’s daughter should have faced disciplinary action for falsely accusing her fellow skaters of bullying and that SISA had abdicated its duties by failing to take disciplinary action against the Claimant’s daughter. In this regard, the Claimant dishonestly and/or improperly procured preferential treatment for her daughter by influencing SISA’s Exco to refrain from taking disciplinary action against the her daughter.		(a) The Claimant’s daughter had, without any basis, wrongly accused her fellow skaters of bullying on social media. This breached certain clauses in SISA’s Athlete Code of Conduct and SISA’s Media Policy which governs their behaviour on social media, and expressly prohibits athletes from posting texts or photographs that damage another athlete’s reputation. (b) SISA ought to have taken steps to address these breaches, dispute the false allegations, and restore the reputation of the affected skaters. However, and importantly, the Special Resolution Forms were not seeking to have the Claimant’s daughter punished.
	(b) The Claimant dishonestly and/or improperly influenced SISA’s Exco to procure preferential treatment for her daughter by publicising her daughter’s name on SISA’s website in priority to more senior skaters.		(c) The Claimant influenced SISA’s Exco to procure preferential treatment for her daughter by publicising her daughter’s name on SISA’s website in priority to more senior skaters.
	(c) The Claimant dishonestly and/or improperly influenced SISA’s Exco with regard to her daughter, despite being in a position of conflict of interest, and is therefore unfit to hold the position of SISA’s Honorary Secretary.		(d) The Claimant influenced SISA’s Exco with regard to her daughter, despite being in a position of conflict, and is therefore unfit to hold the position of SISA’s Honorary Secretary.
	(d) The Claimant was unfit to hold the position of SISA’s Honorary Secretary because, during the Claimant’s previous term of office, she conducted the affairs of SISA’s Exco in an improper manner by making decision(s) in her capacity as a member of SISA’s Exco despite being in a conflict of interest position.		(e) The Claimant was unfit to hold the position of SISA’s Honorary Secretary because, during the Claimant’s previous term of office, she had made certain decisions in her capacity as a member of SISA’s Exco despite having a conflict of interest.

118 There are two key distinctions between the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning and the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning:

(a) Item (a) of the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning suggests that the Claimant procured preferential treatment for her daughter by influencing SISA’s Exco to refrain from taking disciplinary action against her daughter, whereas items (a) and (b) of the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning adopt a more neutral stance by questioning SISA’s lack of action regarding the Instagram Incident. Based on a plain reading of the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications, I agree with the Claimant that there was a suggestion that the Claimant procured preferential treatment for her daughter by influencing SISA’s Exco to refrain from taking disciplinary action against her daughter.

(b) The Claimant attributes dishonesty or impropriety to the underlying conduct in relation to items (c) to (e) of the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning. This distinction is immaterial as the underlying conduct in the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning necessarily suggests some form of dishonest or improper behaviour, and both the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning and the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning are ultimately identical in substance.

119 I therefore find the ordinary meaning of the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications to be as follows:

(a) The Claimant procured preferential treatment for her daughter by influencing SISA’s Exco to refrain from taking disciplinary action against her daughter.

(b) The Claimant influenced SISA’s Exco to procure preferential treatment for her daughter by publicising her daughter’s name on SISA’s website in priority to more senior skaters.

(c) The Claimant influenced SISA’s Exco with regard to her daughter, despite being in a position of conflict, and is therefore unfit to hold the position of SISA’s Honorary Secretary.

(d) The Claimant was unfit to hold the position of SISA’s Honorary Secretary because, during the Claimant’s previous term of office, she had made certain decisions in her capacity as a member of SISA’s Exco despite having a conflict of interest.

120 Based on this ordinary meaning and the extent of publication, I do not see how the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications are defamatory in law. Similar to the case of Terrence Fernandez v Lim Shao Ying Genevieve and another [2020] SGHC 278 at [40], the “sting” was neutralised by the context as the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications would have been understood by the limited recipients (ie. SISA’s Secretariat, SISA’s Exco and SISA’s legal advisor) as a complaint that inherently entails levying allegations, which would “necessarily attract a certain degree of fair-minded scepticism”.

121 Consequently, I dismiss the Claimant’s claim for defamation based on the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications.

The Fifth Impugned Publication

122 The Fifth Impugned Publication relates to defamatory statements in the 2021 AGM Agenda, which was issued as a result of the First and Second Special Resolution Forms, and aimed at preventing the Claimant from standing for SISA’s Exco at the 2021 AGM (see [38]-[42] above).

123 I allow the Claimant’s claim, and order the Defendant to pay $10,000 in general damages relating to the Fifth Impugned Publication for the reasons set out at [124]-[142] below.

The Claimant has established a prima facie case of defamation

124 The Claimant has proven the requisite elements to establish a prima facie case of defamation in respect of the Fifth Impugned Publication.

The publication refers to the Claimant

125 The Defendant accepts that the Fifth Impugned Publication refers to the Claimant.

The Defendant is responsible for the publication

126 The Fifth Impugned Publication was circulated by SISA, rather than the Defendant. After receiving the First and Second Special Resolution Forms (which form the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications), SISA’s Secretariat summarised their contents before circulating the Fifth Impugned Publication as a special resolution item in the 2021 AGM Agenda to its Club Ordinary Members and Club Associate Members (see [41] above).

127 When the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications were made, the Defendant knew that it was a foreseeable consequence that their contents would be circulated or re-published by SISA’s Secretariat for the purposes of the 2021 AGM (Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin [1997] 3 SLR(R) 46 at [130]). His intention was for SISA’s Secretariat to include a resolution at the 2021 AGM to preclude the Claimant from contesting the Honorary Secretary position.

128 Although the wording used in the Fifth Impugned Publication is an abridged version of the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications, it conveys the sense and substance of the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications (The Wellness Group Pte Ltd and another v OSIM International Ltd and others and another suit [2016] 3 SLR 729 at [228]). More pertinently, the Defendant accepts that the ordinary meaning of the Fifth Impugned Publication aligns with the ordinary meaning of the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications at [119(d)] above.

129 Consequently, the Defendant is responsible for the publication of the Fifth Impugned Publication.

The publication is defamatory in nature

130 The parties’ pleaded natural and ordinary meaning of the Fifth Impugned Publication is as follows:

	Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning Foot Note 298 SOC_[27].		Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning Foot Note 299 DF_[33(e)], [34].
	(a) The Claimant was unfit to hold the position of SISA’s Honorary Secretary because, during the Claimant’s previous term of office, she conducted the affairs of SISA’s Exco in an improper manner by making decision(s) in her capacity as a member of SISA’s Exco despite being in a conflict of interest position.		(a) The Claimant was unfit to hold the position of SISA’s Honorary Secretary because, during the Claimant’s previous term of office, she had made certain decisions in her capacity as a member of SISA’s Exco despite having a conflict of interest.

131 The difference between the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning and the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning lies in the Claimant’s attribution of impropriety to the underlying conduct in the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning. This distinction is immaterial as the underlying conduct in the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning necessarily suggests some form of improper behaviour, and both the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning and the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning are ultimately identical in substance.

132 I therefore find the ordinary meaning of the Fifth Impugned Publication (based on an ordinary and reasonable Skating Community member) to be that the Claimant was unfit to hold the position of SISA’s Honorary Secretary because, during the Claimant’s previous term of office, she had made certain decisions in her capacity as a member of SISA’s Exco despite having a conflict of interest. This accords with the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning and is also identical to the ordinary meaning of the Third and Fourth Impugned Publications at [119(d)] above.

133 This is defamatory as it would lower the Claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, particularly since the Fifth Impugned Publication carries an imputation of impropriety in the Claimant’s conduct.

134 In this regard, I do not agree with the Defendant’s argument that the Fifth Impugned Publication is not defamatory because the Skating Community would perceive it with a degree of fair-minded scepticism since it was “subject to discourse at the 2021 AGM”. The Defendant’s position would permit disparaging remarks to be made about election candidates with impunity, which cannot be correct.

The defences of justification and qualified privilege do not apply

The defence of justification

135 The defence of justification does not apply to the ordinary meaning set out at [132] above as the Defendant has not proven that the Claimant made decisions despite having a conflict of interest. The evidence shows that the Claimant abstained from making decisions relating to the Instagram Incident (see [36] above) and her daughter’s selection for the 2018 Asian Trophy (see [100(b)] above). Consequently, the Defendant has not proven the truth of the “sting” of the Fifth Impugned Publication.

136 For completeness, I contemplated whether there was truth to the Fifth Impugned Publication given that it is factually accurate that “certain allegations of conflict of interest and unsuitability [have] been raised by [SLSSC] and [111.12SC]” (see [39]-[40] above). However, such a finding is not appropriate as the question of justification must be considered from the perspective of the ordinary meaning, and I am constrained by the Defendant’s pleaded position regarding the ordinary meaning of the Fifth Impugned Publication (see [130] and [132] above).

The defence of qualified privilege

137 I agree with the Defendant that he had, within the confines of the 2021 AGM, an interest or duty to communicate the information in the Fifth Impugned Publication to SISA’s members and that SISA’s members likewise had a corresponding interest or duty to receive the information. Indeed, Article 7.7 of SISA’s Constitution allows a Club Ordinary Member to place an item on the agenda of an AGM as long as sufficient notice is given.

138 However, the defence of qualified privilege is defeated as the Defendant acted with malice.

139 First, the Defendant acted with a dominant motive to injure the Claimant or an improper motive for the reasons set out at [72] above (which relate to the Exco Removal Vendetta).

140 Second, the Defendant had knowledge of falsity or was reckless as to the truth of the material parts of the Fifth Impugned Publication. After issuing the First Special Resolution Form (ie. the Third Impugned Publication), the Defendant was informed by Ms Alison Chan, Ms Elly Tan and Mr Mahipal Singh that the Claimant was not involved in deliberations relating to the Instagram Incident (see [40(b)] above). Despite this, the Defendant persisted and issued the Second Special Resolution Form (ie. the Fourth Impugned Publication), which resulted in the publication of the Fifth Impugned Publication. It is therefore incorrect for the Defendant to assert that “[t]here is no evidence that [he] believed [his] views to be false”.

Remedies

141 The Claimant seeks $10,000 in general damages relating to the Fifth Impugned Publication. The Defendant suggests that nominal damages of $500 is reasonable.

142 I agree with the Claimant that an award of $10,000 in general damages is fair and reasonable, taking into account the following:

(a) The nature and gravity of the defamatory statements in the Fifth Impugned Publication, which included allegations of impropriety in the Claimant’s conduct (see [132]-[133] above).

(b) The Claimant’s standing in the Skating Community (see [77(b)] above).

(d) The extent of publication of the Fifth Impugned Publication, which was sent to part of the Skating Community (see [126] above).

143 Accordingly, I allow the Claimant’s claim, and order the Defendant to pay $10,000 in general damages relating to the Fifth Impugned Publication.

The Sixth Impugned Publication

144 The Sixth Impugned Publication relates to defamatory statements made during the Defendant’s Sep 2021 Speech at the 2021 AGM to prevent the Claimant’s re-election to SISA’s Exco (see [43]-[45] above).

145 Unlike the First to Fifth Impugned Publications, the Sixth Impugned Publication involves slander (from the oral contents of the Sep 2021 Speech) in addition to libel (from the written contents in the PowerPoint presentation used during the Sep 2021 Speech), which is actionable per se without proof of special damages (Gary Chan Kok Yew and Lee Pey Woan, The Law of Torts in Singapore (Academy Publishing, 2nd Ed, 2016) at [12.006]). However, this distinction is immaterial in this case, as under s 5 of the Defamation Act 1957 (2020 Rev Ed), it is not necessary for the Claimant to prove special damages because the Sixth Impugned Publication was calculated to disparage the Claimant in her “office, profession, calling, trade or business” vis-à-vis her role as SISA’s Honorary Secretary (see [72] above in relation to the Exco Removal Vendetta).

146 I allow the Claimant’s claim, and order the Defendant to pay $40,000 in general damages and $20,000 in aggravated damages relating to the Sixth Impugned Publication for the reasons set out at [147]-[163] below.

The Claimant has established a prima facie case of defamation

147 The Claimant has proven the requisite elements to establish a prima facie case of defamation in respect of the Sixth Impugned Publication.

The publication refers to the Claimant

148 The Defendant accepts that the Sixth Impugned Publication refers to the Claimant.

The publication was published by the Defendant

149 The parties agree that the Sixth Impugned Publication was published to third parties during the 2021 AGM, which was attended by 27 persons (including the Claimant and the Defendant).

The publication is defamatory in nature

150 The parties’ pleaded natural and ordinary meaning of the Sixth Impugned Publication is as follows:

	Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning Foot Note 315 SOC_[34].		Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning Foot Note 316 DF_[44].
	(a) The Claimant’s daughter should have faced disciplinary action for falsely accusing her fellow skaters of bullying and that SISA abdicated its duties by failing to take disciplinary action against the Claimant’s daughter. In this regard, the Claimant dishonestly and/or improperly procured preferential treatment for her daughter by influencing SISA’s Exco to refrain from taking disciplinary action against her daughter, as evidenced by the delay in investigating the matter, SISA’s failure to reply to e-mail enquiries on the matter and SISA’s failure to implement recommendations from Safe Sport.		(a) The Claimant’s daughter had accused her fellow skaters of bullying on social media. This breached certain clauses in SISA’s social media policy. SISA ought to have taken steps to address these breaches, and investigate the issue in a timely fashion.
	(b) The Claimant dishonestly and/or improperly suppressed the investigation into her daughter’s social media posts.		(b) The Claimant suppressed the investigation into her daughter’s social media posts.
	(c) The Claimant interfered with, or otherwise obstructed, Safe Sport’s investigation into her daughter’s social media posts by preventing Safe Sport from interviewing her daughter.		(c) Safe Sport’s investigation was incomplete as it was unable to speak to the Claimant’s daughter, who had made the original allegation of bullying.
	(d) The Claimant dishonestly and/or improperly procured preferential treatment for her daughter, such that the investigation into her daughter’s social media posts was deliberately delayed when other cases were dealt with swiftly.		(d) The Claimant procured preferential treatment for her daughter, such that the investigation into her daughter’s social media post was deliberately delayed when other cases were dealt with swiftly.
	(e) Under the Claimant’s influence and/or instigation, SISA’s disciplinary processes failed to protect the four national team short track skaters allegedly maligned by the Claimant’s daughter’s social media posts.		(e) Under the Claimant’s influence and/or instigation, SISA’s disciplinary processes failed to protect the four national team short track skaters allegedly maligned by the Claimant’s daughter’s social media post.
	(f) The Claimant dishonestly and/or improperly influenced SISA’s Exco to procure preferential treatment for her daughter by publicising her daughter’s name on SISA’s website in priority to more senior skaters.		(f) The Claimant influenced SISA’s Exco to procure preferential treatment for her daughter by publicising her daughter’s name on SISA’s website in priority to more senior skaters.
	(g) Under the Claimant’s influence and/or instigation, SISA’s Exco did not manage SISA’s affairs competently in accordance with the standards expected of a national sports association.		(g) Under the Claimant’s influence and/or instigation, SISA’s Exco did not manage SISA’s affairs competently in accordance with the standards expected of a national sports association.
	(h) Under the Claimant’s influence and/or instigation, SISA’s Exco’s management of SISA’s affairs was dysfunctional.		(h) Under the Claimant’s influence and/or instigation, SISA’s Exco’s management of SISA’s affairs was dysfunctional.
	(i) The conflict of interest policy which was published on SISA’s website on 22 September 2021 had been dishonestly concealed by SISA’s Exco, under the Claimant’s influence and/or instigation. Alternatively, the conflict of interest policy which was published on SISA’s website on 22 September 2021 had not been in place since 2013 (as claimed by the SISA Exco) and had been surreptitiously fabricated by SISA’s Exco, under the Claimant’s influence and/or instigation.		(i) The conflict of interest policy which was published on SISA’s website on 22 September 2021 had previously been an obscure policy which SISA’s members were unfamiliar with. The fact that it was suddenly brought to the fore was a significant departure that ought to have been formally announced.
	(j) Under the Claimant’s influence and/or instigation, SISA’s Exco have not been managing SISA’s affairs transparently.		(j) Under the Claimant’s influence and/or instigation, SISA’s Exco have not been managing SISA’s affairs transparently.

151 There are a few key distinctions between the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning and the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning:

(a) Item (a) of the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning suggests that the Claimant had procured preferential treatment for her daughter by influencing SISA’s Exco to refrain from taking disciplinary action against her daughter, whereas item (a) of the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning adopts a more neutral stance by questioning the steps taken by SISA to investigate the Instagram Incident. Based on a plain reading of the Sixth Impugned Publication, I agree with the Claimant that there is a suggestion that the Claimant procured preferential treatment for her daughter by influencing SISA’s Exco to refrain from taking disciplinary action against her daughter.

(b) The Claimant attributes dishonesty or impropriety to the underlying conduct in relation to items (b), (d) and (f) of the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning. This distinction is immaterial as the underlying conduct in the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning necessarily suggests some form of dishonest or improper behaviour, and both the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning and the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning are ultimately identical in substance.

(c) Item (c) of the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning suggests that the Claimant obstructed Safe Sport’s ability to speak with the Claimant’s daughter regarding the Instagram Incident, whereas item (c) of the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning adopts a more neutral stance by referring to Safe Sport’s inability to speak with the Claimant’s daughter. Based on a plain reading of the Sixth Impugned Publication, I am unable to see an accusation of obstruction, and find that item (c) of the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning is more suitable.

(d) Item (i) of the Claimant’s Pleaded Meaning suggests that the Claimant influenced SISA to conceal its conflict of interest policy or fabricate one, whereas item (i) of the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning adopts a more neutral stance by referring to the lack of awareness about the conflict of interest policy. Based on a plain reading of the Sixth Impugned Publication, I am unable to find an accusation of concealment or fabrication of SISA’s conflict of interest policy, and find that item (i) of the Defendant’s Pleaded Meaning is more suitable.

152 I therefore find the ordinary meaning of the Sixth Impugned Publication (based on an ordinary and reasonable Skating Community member) to be as follows:

(a) The Claimant procured preferential treatment for her daughter by influencing SISA’s Exco to refrain from taking disciplinary action against her daughter.

(b) The Claimant suppressed the investigation into her daughter’s social media posts.

(c) Safe Sport’s investigation was incomplete as it was unable to speak to the Claimant’s daughter, who had made the original allegation of bullying.

(d) The Claimant procured preferential treatment for her daughter, such that the investigation into her daughter’s social media post was deliberately delayed when other cases were dealt with swiftly.

(e) Under the Claimant’s influence and/or instigation, SISA’s disciplinary processes failed to protect the four national team short track skaters allegedly maligned by the Claimant’s daughter’s social media post.

(f) The Claimant influenced SISA’s Exco to procure preferential treatment for her daughter by publicising her daughter’s name on SISA’s website in priority to more senior skaters.

(g) Under the Claimant’s influence and/or instigation, SISA’s Exco did not manage SISA’s affairs competently in accordance with the standards expected of a national sports association.

(h) Under the Claimant’s influence and/or instigation, SISA’s Exco’s management of SISA’s affairs was dysfunctional.

(i) The conflict of interest policy which was published on SISA’s website on 22 September 2021 had previously been an obscure policy which SISA’s members were unfamiliar with. The fact that it was suddenly brought to the fore was a significant departure that ought to have been formally announced.

(j) Under the Claimant’s influence and/or instigation, SISA’s Exco have not been managing SISA’s affairs transparently.

153 Based on this ordinary meaning, the Sixth Impugned Publication is defamatory as it would lower the Claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, particularly since it carries an imputation of dishonesty and impropriety.

154 To this end, I do not agree with the Defendant’s argument that the Sixth Impugned Publication is not defamatory because the Skating Community would perceive it with a degree of fair-minded scepticism since it was made at the 2021 AGM and “would have called for cautious listening and reading”. As mentioned at [134] above, the Defendant’s position would permit disparaging remarks to be made about election candidates with impunity, which cannot be correct.

The defences of justification and qualified privilege do not apply

The defence of justification

155 The defence of justification does not apply to the ordinary meaning set out at [152] above, which can be classified into three categories:

(a) “IP6 Investigative Interference Category” relating to [152(a)], [152(d)] and [152(f)] above. The Defendant has not proven the truth of the “sting” for this category as the evidence shows that the Claimant was not involved in deliberations relating to the Instagram Incident and did not interfere with the investigation process (see [40(b)] above).

(b) “IP6 Preferential Treatment Category” relating to [152(a)]-[152(d)] above. The Defendant has not proven the truth of the “sting” for this category as the evidence shows that the Claimant was not involved in deliberations relating to the Instagram Incident (see [40(b)] above); and that she did not influence the arrangement of the skaters’ names and photographs on SISA’s website.

(c) “IP6 Governance Category” relating to [152(e)] and [152(g)]-[152(j)] above. The Defendant has not proven the truth of the “sting” for this category as there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that the Claimant influenced the decisions of SISA’s Exco. The Defendant has cast wild allegations against the Claimant without evidential basis. During a confrontation in November 2018, the Claimant told the Defendant that Exco decisions were made by SISA’s Exco collectively. Critically, Ms Alison Chan (SISA’s President) testified that decisions are made collectively, and no single individual can dictate the outcome (see [65(a)(iv)] above).

156 Contrary to the Defendant’s argument, he has not produced any evidence to establish the factual substratum of the IP6 Investigative Interference Category, IP6 Preferential Treatment Category or IP6 Governance Category. His reference to the Instagram Incident and Safe Sport’s investigations merely reiterates the background facts that led to his defamatory statements (see [34]-[35] above), and does not help establish the truth of the Sixth Impugned Publication.

The defence of qualified privilege

157 Like the Fifth Impugned Publication (see [137] above), I agree with the Defendant that he had, within the confines of the 2021 AGM, an interest or duty to communicate the information in the Sixth Impugned Publication to SISA’s members and that SISA’s members likewise had a corresponding interest or duty to receive the information.

158 However, the defence of qualified privilege is defeated in this case as the Defendant acted with malice.

159 First, the Defendant acted with a dominant motive to injure the Claimant or an improper motive for the reasons set out at [72] above (which relate to the Exco Removal Vendetta).

160 Second, the Defendant had knowledge of falsity or was reckless as to the truth of the material parts of the Sixth Impugned Publication. He persisted with the Sixth Impugned Publication despite being informed by Ms Alison Chan, Ms Elly Tan and Mr Mahipal Singh that the Claimant was not involved in deliberations relating to the Instagram Incident (see [40(b)] and [140] above) or the arrangement of the skaters’ names and photographs on SISA’s website. Further, he accepted during cross-examination that his assertion that the Claimant was involved in the arrangement of the skaters’ names and photographs on SISA’s website was conjecture.

Remedies

161 The Claimant seeks $40,000 in general damages and $20,000 in aggravated damages relating to the Sixth Impugned Publication. The Defendant suggests that nominal damages of $500 is reasonable.

162 I agree with the Claimant that an award of $40,000 in general damages is fair and reasonable, taking into account the following:

(a) The nature and gravity of the defamatory statements in the Sixth Impugned Publication, which included allegations of dishonesty and impropriety in the Claimant’s conduct (see [152]-[153] above).

(b) The Claimant’s standing in the Skating Community (see [77(b)] above).

(d) The extent of publication of the Sixth Impugned Publication, which was sent to part of the Skating Community (see [149] above).

163 I also agree with the Claimant that an award of $20,000 in aggravated damages is fair and reasonable, taking into account the following:

(a) The Defendant’s maintenance of his plea of justification, which was bound to fail for the reasons set out at [155]-[156] above.

(b) The Defendant’s failure to apologise, despite the Claimant’s request (see [46]-[47] above).

164 Accordingly, I allow the Claimant’s claim, and order the Defendant to pay $40,000 in general damages and $20,000 in aggravated damages relating to the Sixth Impugned Publication.

Conclusion

165 The Claimant succeeds in her claim against the Defendant in respect of the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Impugned Publications. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant a total of $190,000, comprising $130,000 in general damages and $60,000 in aggravated damages.

166 This case illustrates the dangers of echo chambers, which may lack objectivity and fuel conduct that an individual may otherwise have avoided. It also serves as a reminder that individuals must regularly assess the company they keep and critically examine the views they hold. The Defendant’s involvement with the Dissenting Segment and their group chat exchanges that repeatedly disparaged the Claimant created an environment that perpetuated negativity towards the Claimant and manifested in the Defendant’s Exco Removal Vendetta (see [72] above). While this environment may have reinforced the Defendant’s resolve, it did not give him an unfettered right to speak against the Claimant. Legal rules govern such expression, and the Defendant must face the consequences for disregarding such rules.

167 The parties are to file and exchange written submissions on the issue of costs (limited to 10 pages) within 14 days from the date of this judgment.

Samuel Wee
District Judge

Loong Tse Chuan and Tan Charlene (Allen & Gledhill LLP) for the Claimant;

Quek Wen Jiang, Gerard and Chua Ze Xuan (PDLegal LLC) for the Defendant.

ALICIA TAN GEK CHENG v POK VIC SENT

Catchwords

Judges (1)

Counsel (6)

Parties (2)

Judgment