Serangoon Gardens Country Club member was justified in calling ex-president a ‘coward’: Judge
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 15 Jan 2025
Author: Samuel Devaraj
Club member had called him a coward, but defence of justification was established.
Although a member of Serangoon Gardens Country Club had made defamatory comments against its former president at a meeting in September 2019, including calling him a coward, a judge found that the defence of justification had been established.
District Judge Allen Ng dismissed the defamation suit by Mr Terrence Fernandez, president of the country club between June 24, 2018, and September 2020, against Mr Thomas Tan Aik Hong, in comments made on Jan 7.
This was on the premise that the District Court did not have the requisite jurisdiction to hear the case, as the special damages Mr Fernandez was asking for exceeded the limit for cases that it could hear.
But the judge noted that even if the District Court did have jurisdiction, Mr Tan would have succeeded in the defence of justification.
According to the judgment, the 13-member general committee that was led by Mr Fernandez faced problems from the start after it was elected.
Between Oct 31 and November in 2018, nine committee members resigned, seven of whom claimed to have lost confidence in Mr Fernandez.
On or around Nov 8, 2018, the club received a requisition signed by 111 of its members to hold an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to oust Mr Fernandez from his role.
The EGM was eventually convened on Sept 8, 2019, and 80 of the 111 who had initially asked for the meeting arrived at the club.
As this was less than the required 75 per cent attendance, Mr Fernandez had the discretion to cancel the meeting, which he did after allowing a 30-minute grace period.
Mr Tan, who had various previous stints as Serangoon Gardens Country Club’s president, then addressed those present.
Apart from calling Mr Fernandez a coward, Mr Tan also accused him of not letting members cast their votes and cherry-picking of the club’s Constitution in cancelling the meeting.
News of what happened there, including the name-calling, then found its way to the public domain, including via mainstream media.
On Dec 12, 2022, Mr Fernandez sued Mr Tan for defamation and malicious falsehood, before eventually dropping the latter claim.
He sought general damages of $150,000, aggravated damages of $50,000 and special damages of $375,262.
As the claim for special damages, which was specified later, exceeded the District Court limit of $250,000, the district judge called for a pretrial conference on Sept 27, 2024, where Mr Fernandez, represented by Ms Luo Ling Ling and Mr Joshua Ho of Luo Ling Ling LLC, sought to abandon the excess amount.
Mr Tan, who was represented by Mr Anthony Lee Hwee Khiam, Mr Wang Liansheng and Ms Ng Rui Wen of Bih Li & Lee LLP, submitted that it was too late for Mr Fernandez to do so, to which the district judge agreed.
As a result, the District Court could not hear the trial, which had started on June 10, 2024.
However, the judge said he would still set out his thoughts on the merits of the case, adding that if he had jurisdiction to hear and try the action, he would have found that Mr Fernandez had established an initial case of defamation.
This is because Mr Tan had, in his speech, alleged that Mr Fernandez had cancelled the meeting because he was afraid of getting voted out as president.
Noting the portion of the speech where Mr Tan said “I call him a coward and I think he is a coward”, the judge said it was “clearly defamatory”.
“Indeed, in trial, the defendant himself accepted the claimant’s interpretation that this statement meant that the claimant was afraid of getting voted out as club president and therefore had unjustifiably used his powers to cancel the EGM,” the judge said.
However, the district judge said Mr Tan had established the defence of justification as there indeed did not seem to be any objectively good reason to cancel the meeting on Sept 8, 2019.
He said Mr Fernandez would have contemplated that cancelling the meeting would result in a waste of time and costs because the members could just call for another one. He also noted that it was not even the case that a large number of members failed to show up, with the shortfall being less than 3 per cent.
The judge said Mr Fernandez’s admission during the trial that he was keen to be president supported Mr Tan’s case that Mr Fernandez was either afraid of or did not want to face the outcome of the meeting. The judge also dismissed Mr Fernandez’s claim that he had cancelled the meeting as he wanted to adhere to the club’s Constitution on attendance numbers.
This is not supported by evidence, he said, adding that the fact that Mr Fernandez had raised it during the trial suggests it was an afterthought that was made up.
He said the parties are to file their cost submissions within three weeks of his decision, if they are unable to agree on costs.
Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
1782