NG BOON PING (HUANG WENBIN) v LOW MUN WAH MERVIN

Facts

Ng Boon Ping (Huang Wenbin), the plaintiff, is described in the judgment as the owner of the Profish kayak brand, later rebranded Yak2Go, and a director of SH Global Pte Ltd. Low Mun Wah Mervin, the defendant, is a prominent member of the local and international kayak fishing community. According to the defendant's opening statement, the two had an informal partnership to import kayaks from a Chinese manufacturer and sell them under the Profish brand, sharing costs and profits, with the plaintiff handling logistics and the defendant handling marketing.

The partnership ended on 29 April 2020, in disputed circumstances. The next day, after the manufacturer told him it would not work with him, the defendant published the first of seven Facebook posts made between 30 April 2020 and 28 October 2020. The plaintiff sued for defamation in District Court Suit No 342 of 2021, claiming the posts accused him of dishonest business practices and damaged his reputation and business. The defendant denied that the posts were defamatory or referred to the plaintiff, and relied on justification and fair comment. The trial was bifurcated, and this judgment dealt only with liability.

Issues

1. Whether each of the seven Facebook posts was defamatory of the plaintiff in its natural and ordinary meaning or by innuendo
2. Whether the defences of justification or fair comment applied to any post found to be defamatory
3. Whether the parties' objections to each other's affidavits of evidence-in-chief should be upheld

Holding

The District Court allowed the claim in part. It found that only the Third Post was defamatory of the plaintiff and that no defence applied to it; the other six posts were not defamatory. The court entered interlocutory judgment for the plaintiff for damages arising from the Third Post, to be assessed, with interest and costs reserved to the assessment.

Reasoning

On the preliminary points, the court found both sides' objections to the affidavits without substantive merit and preferred to bear admissibility in mind rather than rule on each one. Publication on Facebook was not disputed. Although the plaintiff and Yak2Go were not the same, Yak2Go was not a separate legal entity and statements defamatory of it would affect the plaintiff's reputation.

On meaning, the First Post and its revised version described a business break-up; the phrase "hidden agenda", later changed, was unflattering but not defamatory, and the pleaded innuendos were far-fetched and contrived. The Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Posts were general comments about Chinese-made kayaks that did not mention the plaintiff or Profish; the word "Yaks" did not refer to Yak2Go, and innuendos had not been particularised as the Rules of Court required. The Seventh Post did name Yak2Go, but calling the attempt "shameless and desperate" was not defamatory. The Third Post, headed "A promise is a promise", contrasted the defendant's promise-keeping with references to the plaintiff and questioned his intent and integrity; read in context, parts of it carried defamatory meanings, though not by innuendo.

On defences, the court was not satisfied that the plaintiff acted with questionable intent or integrity. The break-up was not as clear as the defendant portrayed, the plaintiff's position on honouring customer orders was not unreasonable, and a witness who might have supported justification was not called. Fair comment failed because the post went beyond comment on a matter of public interest and its factual foundation was not established, though the court did not find malice.

From the judgment