Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 125
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2025-07-02
- Judges: S Mohan J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Foo Diana
- Defendant/Respondent: Woo Mui Chan
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Costs
- Statutes Referenced: State Courts Act 1970
- Cases Cited: [2023] SGHC 221, [2025] SGHC 125, [2025] SGHC 54
- Judgment Length: 17 pages, 4,073 words
Summary
This case concerns a dispute over the appropriate costs to be awarded to the plaintiff, an advocate and solicitor, following a successful defamation lawsuit against the defendant. The plaintiff sought costs of $175,268, but the court found this amount unjustified and instead awarded costs on the Magistrate's Court scale, as the damages awarded were within the jurisdiction of the State Courts.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiff, Foo Diana, is an advocate and solicitor with around 20 years of standing. She became acquainted with the defendant, Woo Mui Chan, in 2015, and they later became friends. However, their relationship soured due to disagreements over loans extended by the plaintiff to the defendant.
In 2018, the defendant posted an online review relating to the plaintiff on the Google page of The Law Society of Singapore. On 3 March 2020, the defendant also filed a written complaint to the Law Society about the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant for defamation in respect of these two statements.
Following a trial, the court found the defendant liable for defaming the plaintiff in respect of both statements. An assessment of damages hearing then followed, where the plaintiff sought a sum of $300,000 in general damages and at least $50,000 in aggravated damages. However, the court ultimately awarded the plaintiff damages in the sum of $41,250, comprising $33,000 in general damages and $8,250 in aggravated damages.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue in this case was the appropriate costs to be awarded to the plaintiff, given that the damages awarded were within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court (up to $60,000).
The plaintiff argued that costs should be awarded on the High Court scale, relying on the case of Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang, where the court assessed costs on the High Court scale despite the damages being within the District Court's jurisdictional limit. The plaintiff contended that her defamation claim raised important public interest considerations concerning the integrity and reputation of legal professionals.
The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff's case involved simple issues that could have been dealt with in the Magistrate's Court, and that there was no sufficient reason to bring the claim in the High Court.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court acknowledged that the general practice is to award costs on the applicable State Courts scale when a claim is commenced in the High Court but the damages awarded fall within the jurisdiction of the State Courts, as per section 39(1) of the State Courts Act 1970.
The court noted that there are four exceptions to this general rule, two of which were relevant in this case: (a) if the court is satisfied that there was "sufficient reason" to bring the action in the High Court, and (d) if there was a reasonable ground for supposing the amount recoverable would exceed the Magistrate's Court limit.
The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments for applying the High Court scale. It found that there was nothing novel about the plaintiff's case, as the issues of lawyers being defamed and online defamation were well-settled in Singapore jurisprudence. The court also disagreed with the plaintiff's attempt to place lawyers on equal footing with public figures for the purposes of assessing damages, noting that this was "entirely misconceived" and contrary to the court's previous findings.
Furthermore, the court found that there was no reasonable ground for the plaintiff to have expected to recover damages exceeding the Magistrate's Court limit. The court had already rejected the plaintiff's claims for substantial damages, finding that her evidence of lost earnings was "woefully short" and her assertions of significant losses were unsupported.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ultimately awarded the plaintiff significantly lower costs on the Magistrate's Court scale, rather than the $175,268 the plaintiff had sought. The court found the plaintiff's claimed costs to be unjustified and not commensurate with the damages awarded.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides important guidance on the principles governing the award of costs when a claim is commenced in the High Court but the damages awarded fall within the jurisdiction of the State Courts. It reinforces the general practice of assessing costs on the applicable State Courts scale in such situations, unless the court is satisfied that there was sufficient reason to bring the action in the High Court or that there was a reasonable ground to expect the damages to exceed the State Courts' limit.
The case also highlights the court's reluctance to depart from this general practice, even in cases involving professionals such as lawyers, where the plaintiff may argue that the claim raises important public interest considerations. The court's rejection of the plaintiff's attempt to equate the reputational harm to lawyers with that of public figures is a significant ruling that will likely have broader implications for how defamation claims by professionals are assessed.
Legislation Referenced
Cases Cited
- [2023] SGHC 221 (Diana Foo (Liability))
- [2025] SGHC 54 (Diana Foo (Assessment))
- [2024] 5 SLR 194 (Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang and another matter)
- [2004] 3 SLR(R) 193 (Cheong Ghim Fah and another v Murugian s/o Rangasamy)
- [2021] 1 SLR 513 (Michael Vaz Lorrain v Singapore Rifle Association)
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 455 (Lock Han Chng Jonathan (Jonathan Luo Hancheng) v Goh Jessiline)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHC 125 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.