Diana Foo v Woo Mui Chan

Facts

Diana Foo, an advocate and solicitor called to the bar in 2005, sued Woo Mui Chan, a businesswoman who started a restaurant on Prinsep Street in 2015, for defamation in Suit No 510 of 2021. The two met in 2015 and became friends, and Ms Woo sought legal advice from Ms Foo about the restaurant. Ms Foo lent Ms Woo money, though they disagreed on the details. The friendship broke down into litigation: Ms Foo issued statutory demands and brought two Magistrate's Court actions, and Ms Woo was eventually adjudged liable for S$17,750.00, which she paid.

Around 2018 Ms Woo posted a review on the Law Society's Google page saying she was being "bullied" by Ms Foo, naming her firm, and that Ms Foo forced her to "do illegal deals" (Statement 1). On 3 March 2020 she lodged a complaint with the Law Society (Statement 2), alleging among other things that Ms Foo lent her cash but insisted the loans not be recorded, asked her to help "move money" in a Vietnam deal, made sexual advances towards her, and used vulgarities. A Law Society Review Committee unanimously dismissed the complaint. Ms Woo did not meet Ms Foo's letters of demand. The trial was split, so this judgment dealt only with liability.

Issues

1. Whether the two statements were defamatory of Ms Foo, referred to her and were published
2. Whether Ms Woo proved justification for Statement 1 by showing the gist of the illegal deals allegation was true
3. Whether Statement 2 was protected by qualified privilege
4. Whether any qualified privilege was defeated by malice

Holding

S Mohan J found Ms Woo liable for defamation in respect of both statements and allowed Ms Foo's claim on liability. Damages are to be assessed separately, and costs were to be heard later.

Reasoning

Both statements met the three requirements of defamation: they would lower a lawyer in the estimation of right-thinking people, named her, and were communicated to others, including a person who replied to the online post and the Law Society. Ms Woo did not dispute this.

On justification, Ms Woo had to prove that the deals were illegal, that Ms Foo knew it, and that Ms Foo forced her into them. For a proposed gold bullion transaction, she did not plead what was illegal, described it only as potentially a scam, and admitted in cross-examination that it was not an illegal deal. The emails showed that she, not Ms Foo, introduced the deal. The court also found that she gave false evidence about a signature page that in fact belonged to a different agreement. For a proposed Vietnam investment, she relied on a bare claim that Ms Foo called the contract "for show", and her secret recording showed Ms Foo agreeing that deals must be done legally. Her offer to apologise and her deletion of the post were inconsistent with the defence.

On qualified privilege, a complaint to the regulator of lawyers about alleged professional misconduct falls within the common interest category, so Statement 2 was capable of protection. But the privilege was defeated by malice. In light of the parties' history of acrimony and litigation, the court found she could not have believed the sexual advances allegation, given affectionate messages she herself sent. The loan complaint was raised only after the friendship soured, and the "move money" allegation was irrelevant to her questions to the Law Society. Although Ms Foo did use vulgarities, that complaint had to be read as part of the whole. Ms Woo's own answers to the Review Committee showed she did not honestly believe she was Ms Foo's client. The complaint was retaliation for a personal grudge.

From the judgment