LITTLITT Try LITT free
Def. Lex-O-Pedia
When Will a Court Attach Property or Restrain Its Sale Before Judgment?
Order 38 Rule 5 and Order 39 CPC set a high bar for freezing a defendant's assets before trial, and Exception 8 to defamation shields good-faith police complaints. What plaintiffs must actually prove to win these interim remedies.
Read full entry
Singapore

United Overseas Bank Ltd v Xu Yuanchen and another [2026] SGHCR 5

The court held that in assessing general damages for defamation of a corporate claimant, the court should consider the nature and gravity of the defamation, the standing of the parties, the mode and extent of publication, and the conduct of the defendant, while excluding the cour

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Tang Swea Phing v Chan Tam Hoi (alias Paul Chan) and another appeal [2024] SGHC 167

A principal is liable for defamatory statements made by an agent if the statements are made in the course of representing the principal within the scope of the agent's actual or apparent authority, even if the agent is an independent contractor.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang and another matter [2024] SGHC 136

The court assessed damages for defamation in default of appearance, finding that the defendant's defamatory allegations of corruption against public officials were of the gravest kind, and that the defendant's conduct and malice justified an award of $200,000 in general and aggra

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and Others and Another Suit [2006] SGHC 220

Politicians have the right to sue for defamation in their personal capacity if defamatory statements about the government or political institutions are capable of being understood to refer to them.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan (No 2) [2005] SGHC 2

The court assessed damages for defamation in a case where the defendant had made serious allegations of dishonesty against a senior government official and failed to substantiate his defences.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Icadam Technologies Sdn Bhd and Others v CAD-IT Consultants (Asia) Pte Ltd and Others [2005] SGHC 130

The court held that the second defendant defamed the plaintiffs by making false allegations of intellectual property infringement to a client, and that the first defendant was vicariously liable for these statements.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Macquarie Corporate Telecommunications Pte Ltd v Phoenix Communications Pte Ltd and Another [2003] SGHC 314

The court held that the second defendant's statements were defamatory and that the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege failed due to malice.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

TJ System (S) Pte Ltd and Others v Ngow Kheong Shen (No 2) [2003] SGHC 217

The court assessed damages for defamation, noting that awards should be proportionate to the harm and injury occasioned, and that a plea of justification, if unsuccessful, generally aggravates damages.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Fraser and Neave Limited and Others v Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Limited and Another [2001] SGHC 109

The court determined the natural and ordinary meaning of allegedly defamatory words in a letter under O 14 r 12(1) of the Rules of Court, finding that the letter insinuated improper conduct by the plaintiffs.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Fraser & Neave Ltd and Others v Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd and Another [2001] SGHC 106

The court determined the natural and ordinary meaning of allegedly defamatory words in a letter under O 14 r 12(1) of the Rules of Court, finding that the words insinuated improper conduct by the plaintiffs in a takeover.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Diana Foo v Woo Mui Chan

Loss of earnings, business and clientele in defamation cases constitutes special damage, which must be specifically pleaded and proven with evidence, rather than being recoverable as general damages.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Def. Lex-O-Pedia
What are the Constitutional Safeguards and Legal Frameworks for Freedom of the Press in India?
The freedom of the press in India, implicit under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, is vital for democracy. While it empowers open dialogue, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) to ensure public order, security, and individual rights.
Read full entry