SINGAPORE: A registered proprietor of a unit in Oxley Bizhub, an industrial building, was awarded S$30,000 (US$23,300) in damages on Wednesday (Jun 11) after he successfully sued its management corporation for defamation.
Mr Koh Chong Chiah, 71, the chief executive officer of Arts Theatre of Singapore, a Chinese drama charity organisation, sued the Oxley Bizhub's Management Corporation Strata Title over a letter it sent to all its subsidiary proprietors alleging bullying behaviour by Mr Koh.
In his judgment, District Judge Seah Chi-Ling assessed the overall defamation to be "moderately severe" and awarded less than the S$150,000 that Mr Koh sought in general damages.
He also rejected Mr Koh's claim for aggravated damages of S$100,000, finding that this was not warranted.
Arts Theatre of Singapore occupies a unit in Oxley Bizhub, which has a total of 728 units and is located along Ubi Road 1.
Mr Koh was represented by lawyer Clarence Lun from Fervent Chambers, while Oxley Bizhub's management corporation was represented by lawyers Nicholas Leong and Nichol Yeo from Nine Yard Chambers.
The judge noted that Mr Koh, formerly a senior banker, and the incumbent management council members had been "far from cordial" over the years.
Mr Koh and a number of subsidiary proprietors were critical of the way the management council managed Oxley Bizhub and had tried to take the council to task for the way it handled various matters.
The dissenting group had also tried to replace council members at annual general meetings, but they failed to get enough votes to get themselves elected into the council.
In June 2021, a letter allegedly issued under the management corporation's letterhead was placed into the letterboxes of all the subsidiary proprietors at Oxley Bizhub.
The letter was addressed to government agencies, including the Prime Minister's Office, the People's Association, and the Building and Construction Authority.
This letter contained libellous statements, including how Mr Koh supposedly bullied and threatened those at Oxley Bizhub, how he "harassed" the council by lodging complaints with public service agencies, and how he was “using his PBM title” to put pressure on these agencies.
PBM refers to the Public Service Medal, which Mr Koh received in 2000 for his service to the arts community in Singapore.
The letter also referred to how Mr Koh organised the group, loosely known as "Oxley Task Force", and how he allegedly vandalised Oxley Bizhub's facilities to make the management corporation "look bad".
On Jun 10, 2021, an email referring to this letter was sent from the email address of the management corporation to all owners and occupiers of units within Oxley Bizhub.
The email requested that the subsidiary proprietors sign a petition to support the letter being sent to the government agencies.
Mr Koh argued that five statements within the letter disparaged his standing within Oxley Bizhub and the wider community.
In its defence, the management corporation argued that the statements were not defamatory, and that Mr Koh failed to prove that it had sent the letter to the government agencies and the subsidiary proprietors.
Although the management corporation put forward the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege at first, it abandoned these arguments towards the close of the case.
The case went to trial with six witnesses giving evidence.
The witnesses were Mr Koh himself, two subsidiary proprietors he asked to take the stand - who were also members of the "Oxley Task Force" - a member of the management council, its current chairman and a consultant of the management agent.
Judge Seah found four of the five statements defamatory, saying that they suggested malfeasance (dishonest and illegal acts), misconduct, bad character and unethical conduct on Mr Koh's part.
He ruled that the letter was sent to all subsidiary proprietors based on the evidence presented, but that Mr Koh had not proven that the letter was sent to the government agencies.
It was unclear if enough support had been garnered to send the letter to the government agencies and if it was indeed sent, Judge Seah said, noting a lack of receipt or acknowledgement by the agencies who would have received the letter.
Turning to the amount of damages to be awarded, the judge said an aggravating factor in the case was that "the sting of the defamation here casts an adverse imputation on (Mr Koh's) standing as a PBM, a title that is given to persons in recognition of their good character and service to the nation".
"The PBM title thus has the effect of elevating Mr Koh's standing in society somewhat. The sting of the defamation also relates to the misuse of Mr Koh's PBM title, suggesting that he has abused the title conferred on him, is of bad character and underserving of the title.
"In this regard, I also note that the (management corporation) has made deliberate efforts to emphasise the fact that Mr Koh is a 'PBM' in the impugned letter, by referring to his 'PBM' title in bold throughout the letter," the judge added.
However, unlike past cases presented by Mr Koh that involved professionals, office bearers or business persons of high standing, Mr Koh did not fall into the same category in spite of his PBM title, Judge Seah said.
He also considered the extent of the publication, noting that even though the letter was sent to all subsidiary proprietors, it did not mean that 728 individuals received the letter, since subsidiary proprietors may own multiple units.
He found that there was no malice displayed by the management corporation.
The purpose of the letter was to seek the government's help to arrange for a mediation between the management corporation and Mr Koh, he noted.
He also said there was evidence of past instances in which Mr Koh wrote to various government or regulatory authorities to complain about issues related to the management council.
"The complaints, by their sheer number of occasions, could reasonably be viewed by the MCST as having a harassing and threatening effect," the judge said.
In 2019 itself, around 94 emails were exchanged between the two sides. Mr Koh and members of the "Oxley Task Force" on one side, and members of the management council or its management agent – or both – on the other. These were complaints on a range of issues.
Judge Seah dismissed the argument for aggravated damages, finding that these were awarded to compensate for added injuries caused to a claimant's feelings by a defendant's conduct.
These would include allegations of bad behaviour during mitigation and a repetition of defamatory remarks, which were absent in this case.
For the same reason, the judge did not grant Mr Koh's injunction to stop the management corporation from publishing or repeating the libellous statements, because he noted that there had been no republication in the four years since the letter came to Mr Koh's attention.
Continue reading...
Mr Koh Chong Chiah, 71, the chief executive officer of Arts Theatre of Singapore, a Chinese drama charity organisation, sued the Oxley Bizhub's Management Corporation Strata Title over a letter it sent to all its subsidiary proprietors alleging bullying behaviour by Mr Koh.
In his judgment, District Judge Seah Chi-Ling assessed the overall defamation to be "moderately severe" and awarded less than the S$150,000 that Mr Koh sought in general damages.
He also rejected Mr Koh's claim for aggravated damages of S$100,000, finding that this was not warranted.
Arts Theatre of Singapore occupies a unit in Oxley Bizhub, which has a total of 728 units and is located along Ubi Road 1.
Mr Koh was represented by lawyer Clarence Lun from Fervent Chambers, while Oxley Bizhub's management corporation was represented by lawyers Nicholas Leong and Nichol Yeo from Nine Yard Chambers.
EVENTS IN THE LEAD-UP TO DEFAMATION SUIT
The judge noted that Mr Koh, formerly a senior banker, and the incumbent management council members had been "far from cordial" over the years.
Mr Koh and a number of subsidiary proprietors were critical of the way the management council managed Oxley Bizhub and had tried to take the council to task for the way it handled various matters.
The dissenting group had also tried to replace council members at annual general meetings, but they failed to get enough votes to get themselves elected into the council.
In June 2021, a letter allegedly issued under the management corporation's letterhead was placed into the letterboxes of all the subsidiary proprietors at Oxley Bizhub.
The letter was addressed to government agencies, including the Prime Minister's Office, the People's Association, and the Building and Construction Authority.
This letter contained libellous statements, including how Mr Koh supposedly bullied and threatened those at Oxley Bizhub, how he "harassed" the council by lodging complaints with public service agencies, and how he was “using his PBM title” to put pressure on these agencies.
PBM refers to the Public Service Medal, which Mr Koh received in 2000 for his service to the arts community in Singapore.
The letter also referred to how Mr Koh organised the group, loosely known as "Oxley Task Force", and how he allegedly vandalised Oxley Bizhub's facilities to make the management corporation "look bad".
On Jun 10, 2021, an email referring to this letter was sent from the email address of the management corporation to all owners and occupiers of units within Oxley Bizhub.
The email requested that the subsidiary proprietors sign a petition to support the letter being sent to the government agencies.
Mr Koh argued that five statements within the letter disparaged his standing within Oxley Bizhub and the wider community.
In its defence, the management corporation argued that the statements were not defamatory, and that Mr Koh failed to prove that it had sent the letter to the government agencies and the subsidiary proprietors.
Although the management corporation put forward the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege at first, it abandoned these arguments towards the close of the case.
The case went to trial with six witnesses giving evidence.
The witnesses were Mr Koh himself, two subsidiary proprietors he asked to take the stand - who were also members of the "Oxley Task Force" - a member of the management council, its current chairman and a consultant of the management agent.
Judge Seah found four of the five statements defamatory, saying that they suggested malfeasance (dishonest and illegal acts), misconduct, bad character and unethical conduct on Mr Koh's part.
He ruled that the letter was sent to all subsidiary proprietors based on the evidence presented, but that Mr Koh had not proven that the letter was sent to the government agencies.
It was unclear if enough support had been garnered to send the letter to the government agencies and if it was indeed sent, Judge Seah said, noting a lack of receipt or acknowledgement by the agencies who would have received the letter.
DAMAGES
Turning to the amount of damages to be awarded, the judge said an aggravating factor in the case was that "the sting of the defamation here casts an adverse imputation on (Mr Koh's) standing as a PBM, a title that is given to persons in recognition of their good character and service to the nation".
"The PBM title thus has the effect of elevating Mr Koh's standing in society somewhat. The sting of the defamation also relates to the misuse of Mr Koh's PBM title, suggesting that he has abused the title conferred on him, is of bad character and underserving of the title.
"In this regard, I also note that the (management corporation) has made deliberate efforts to emphasise the fact that Mr Koh is a 'PBM' in the impugned letter, by referring to his 'PBM' title in bold throughout the letter," the judge added.
However, unlike past cases presented by Mr Koh that involved professionals, office bearers or business persons of high standing, Mr Koh did not fall into the same category in spite of his PBM title, Judge Seah said.
He also considered the extent of the publication, noting that even though the letter was sent to all subsidiary proprietors, it did not mean that 728 individuals received the letter, since subsidiary proprietors may own multiple units.
He found that there was no malice displayed by the management corporation.
The purpose of the letter was to seek the government's help to arrange for a mediation between the management corporation and Mr Koh, he noted.
He also said there was evidence of past instances in which Mr Koh wrote to various government or regulatory authorities to complain about issues related to the management council.
"The complaints, by their sheer number of occasions, could reasonably be viewed by the MCST as having a harassing and threatening effect," the judge said.
In 2019 itself, around 94 emails were exchanged between the two sides. Mr Koh and members of the "Oxley Task Force" on one side, and members of the management council or its management agent – or both – on the other. These were complaints on a range of issues.
Judge Seah dismissed the argument for aggravated damages, finding that these were awarded to compensate for added injuries caused to a claimant's feelings by a defendant's conduct.
These would include allegations of bad behaviour during mitigation and a repetition of defamatory remarks, which were absent in this case.
For the same reason, the judge did not grant Mr Koh's injunction to stop the management corporation from publishing or repeating the libellous statements, because he noted that there had been no republication in the four years since the letter came to Mr Koh's attention.
Continue reading...