NGUYEN THUY HA v TRAN THI BICH HA JARTA (S) PTE. LTD. & Anor v TRAN THI BICH HA

Facts

Tran Thi Bich Ha, a Vietnamese businesswoman living in Vietnam and a shareholder of the travel and air-cargo group Transviet, had a long personal and business relationship with Nguyen Hai. In January 2021 Hai met Nguyen Thuy Ha (Angie), a Vietnamese national living in Singapore and a shareholder of the Singapore travel agency Jarta (S) Pte Ltd, and they began a sexual relationship; they later married. Suspecting that Angie had used sex to win Transviet's air-cargo business, Bich Ha published 15 Facebook posts in Vietnamese between March and June 2021, which did not name Angie in full but gave details such as her initials, birth year, children, relief flight and community role.

Angie sued in District Court Suit No 1448 of 2021, and Jarta and another shareholder, Nguyen Thi Thu Trang (Jane), sued over five of the posts in District Court Suit No 1490 of 2021. Each sought removal of the posts, damages of $150,000, an apology and an undertaking, limiting their claims to harm in Singapore. Bich Ha denied reference and substantial publication in Singapore, denied the posts were defamatory, and pleaded justification. The actions were tried together before District Judge Chiah Kok Khun.

Issues

1. Whether the Facebook posts were published to a substantial number of readers in Singapore
2. Whether readers would understand the posts to refer to each of the plaintiffs
3. Whether the posts were defamatory of the plaintiffs
4. Whether the defence of justification applied

Holding

The court dismissed both actions because publication in Singapore was not proved and no real and substantial tort was disclosed. For completeness it found that the posts referred to and were defamatory of Angie and that justification failed, but that they did not refer to Jane and that the references to Jarta were not defamatory. Costs submissions were directed.

Reasoning

On publication, the court followed Qingdao Bohai Construction Group Co, Ltd v Goh Teck Beng [2016] 4 SLR 979: there is no presumption that internet material has been published, and there must be facts supporting an inference of publication in Singapore to a substantial number of readers. Bich Ha lived and did business in Vietnam, the posts were in Vietnamese, and none of the commenters or likers was shown to have read the posts in Singapore. The only Singapore witness, who did not read Vietnamese, could not recall which posts he saw and was found unreliable. Even at its highest, any publication was limited and any damages would be de minimis, so under the Jameel principle as accepted in Yan Jun v AG [2015] 1 SLR 752 the claims amounted at most to nominal publication.

On reference, applying Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1944] AC 116, the many specific details pointed unmistakably to Angie. Nothing a general reader would know linked the posts to Jane, while Jarta was named in three posts.

On meaning, the posts were plainly capable of the pleaded meanings, including that Angie was a prostitute and used sex to bribe business partners, which were defamatory. The posts naming Jarta were read as business announcements about ending dealings and investigating them, which were not defamatory.

On justification, there was no evidence that business was diverted from Transviet to Jarta, the two firms were not competitors, and the relationship had become romantic and led to marriage, so the sting was not proved true.

From the judgment