Gao Shuchao v Tan Kok Quan: Defamation Claim Over Special Levy Disclosure at Duchess Residences AGM

Gao Shuchao, the Appellant, appealed against the District Judge's decision in a defamation claim brought by Tan Kok Quan, Kuah Kok Kim, and Gn Hiang Meng, the Respondents, who were members of the management council (MC) of Duchess Residences. The defamation claim stemmed from disagreements over a Special Levy imposed by the MCST. The Appellant alleged deliberate concealment or misrepresentation by the MCST regarding the receipt of funds. The District Judge found the Appellant's statements defamatory and rejected his defenses. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the defense of qualified privilege was not defeated by malice.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Defamation claim arising from statements made at an AGM regarding the non-disclosure of funds. The court allowed the appeal, finding no malice.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Gao ShuchaoAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Tan Kok QuanRespondentIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Kuah Kok KimRespondentIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Gn Hiang MengRespondentIndividualClaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. The Appellant, Gao Shuchao, is a subsidiary proprietor and associate professor of law.
  2. The Respondents were members of the management council (MC) of Duchess Residences.
  3. The dispute arose from disagreements over a Special Levy imposed by the MCST.
  4. The Appellant alleged deliberate concealment or misrepresentation by the MCST regarding the receipt of funds.
  5. The District Judge found the Appellant's statements defamatory and rejected his defenses.
  6. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the defense of qualified privilege was not defeated by malice.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Gao Shuchao v Tan Kok Quan and others, District Court Appeal 16 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 115
  2. Tan Kok Quan & 2 Ors v Gao Shuchao, , [2017] SGDC 152
  3. MCST Plan No. 3720 v Gao Shuchao, , [2017] SGMC 10

6. Timeline

DateEvent
MCST commenced DC Suit No 3497 of 2014 against Duchess Walk Pte Ltd to recover arrears of contributions.
Second Extra-ordinary General Meeting of Duchess Residences was held and a special resolution was passed to impose a one-time Special Levy.
MCST sent the Appellant an invoice for the payment of the first Special Levy instalment.
The Appellant replied with an email to the MCST highlighting the procedural and substantive errors in the imposition of the Special Levy.
Judgment was granted to the MCST against the Developer in DC Suit No 3497 of 2014.
The MCST received payment of $261,055 from the 13 SPs.
The second instalment of the Special Levy fell due.
The MC held a meeting to discuss whether the MCST’s receipt of the judgment sum should be disclosed to all the SPs.
By a letter dated 2 December 2015 from the MCST’s solicitors, Wong Thomas & Leong, to the Appellant, the MCST demanded payment of $2,050.73 in respect of the Special Levy.
The Appellant replied by way of an email to Wong Thomas & Leong stating that the Special Levy was “invalid” due to its violations of the BMSMA.
A notice was sent by the MCST to the SPs to remind them about the payment of the last instalment of the Special Levy.
The MCST filed the writ of summons against the Appellant in MC Suit No 24066 of 2015 to claim the Special Levy of $2,050.73 with interest and costs.
The MCST received payment of costs of $40,728.48 in relation to DC Suit No 3497 of 2014 from the Developer.
The Management Council Report for 2015/16 was released, disclosing the receipt of the judgment sum and the costs payment.
Annual General Meeting was held.
The MCST sent a letter to the Appellant demanding that he withdraw his allegations.
The Appellant sent a letter to the First Respondent explaining his position.
The solicitors acting for the MCST sent the Appellant a letter demanding that he publish an unreserved retraction and apology.
The MCST obtained judgment against the Appellant.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court held that the defense of qualified privilege was not defeated by malice, allowing the appeal.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Qualified privilege
      • Malice
      • Fair comment
      • Justification
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] SGDC 152
      • [2008] 3 SLR(R) 236
      • [2010] 4 SLR 331
      • [2015] 2 SLR 751
      • [2017] SGHC 137
      • [1975] AC 135
      • [1992] 1 SLR(R) 752
      • [2009] 4 SLR(R) 648
      • [2017] 1 SLR 546
      • [2010] 3 SLR 110
      • [2014] 4 SLR 1117
      • [1989] 2 SLR(R) 544
      • [1994] 2 SLR(R) 1070
      • [2000] SGHC 111
      • [1998] 3 SLR(R) 774
      • [1917] AC 309
      • [2010] 1 SLR 52
      • [1996] 1 SLR(R) 258

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Apology
  3. Retraction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Defamation Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tan Kok Quan & 2 Ors v Gao ShuchaoDistrict CourtYes[2017] SGDC 152SingaporeThe District Judge's decision that the Appellant's statements were defamatory and that his defenses failed.
Hytech Builders Pte Ltd v Goh Teng Poh KarenHigh CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 236SingaporeCited for the principle that subsidiary proprietors share a common interest in resolving issues within the condominium.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2010] 4 SLR 331SingaporeCited for the principle that malice, if proven, can defeat a defence of qualified privilege.
Golden Season Pte Ltd and others v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] 2 SLR 751SingaporeCited for the principle that malice can be found where the defendant had knowledge of falsity or was reckless as to the truth of the defamatory statement.
Ezion Holdings Ltd v Credit Suisse AGHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 137SingaporeCited for the principle that the inquiry as to the statement-maker’s state of mind is a subjective exercise and the threshold to be met is high.
Horrocks v LoweHouse of LordsYes[1975] AC 135United KingdomCited for the principle that malice would not be present where the defendant was merely careless, impulsive or irrational in believing the statement to be true.
Maidstone Pte Ltd v Takenaka CorpHigh CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR(R) 752SingaporeCited for the principle that malice would not be present where the defendant was merely careless, impulsive or irrational in believing the statement to be true.
ABZ v Singapore Press Holdings LtdHigh CourtYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 648SingaporeCited for the principle that malice would not be present where the defendant was merely careless, impulsive or irrational in believing the statement to be true.
Goh Lay Khim v Isabel Redrup Agency Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] 1 SLR 546SingaporeCited for the principle of how to determine whether a defamatory statement is one of fact or comment.
Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 110SingaporeCited for the principle of how to determine whether a defamatory statement is one of fact or comment.
Loh Siew Hock and others v Lang Chin NgauHigh CourtYes[2014] 4 SLR 1117SingaporeCited for the criteria to succeed in the defence of fair comment.
Lee Kuan Yew v Davies Derek Gwyn and orsHigh CourtYes[1989] 2 SLR(R) 544SingaporeCited for the principle that where the context puts a defendant on notice as to the truth or accuracy of the information, a failure to verify the information may imply malice.
Price Waterhouse Intrust Ltd v Wee Choo Keong and othersCourt of AppealYes[1994] 2 SLR(R) 1070SingaporeCited for the principle that a failure to obtain independent verification of information could not amount to evidence of any malice on the part of the defendant.
Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JPHigh CourtYes[2000] SGHC 111SingaporeCited for the principle that evidence of a defendant’s conduct and action prior to the publication of a defamatory statement, at the time of the publication and after the publication including the entire surrounding circumstances, must be viewed in totality in determining whether there was malice.
DHKW Marketing and another v Nature’s Farm Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 774SingaporeCited for the principle that malice could be inferred if a defendant refused to apologise even after he was aware that the statement was false.
Adam v WardHouse of LordsYes[1917] AC 309United KingdomCited for the principle that a person making a communication on a privileged occasion is not restricted to the use of such language merely as is reasonably necessary to protect the interest or discharge the duty which is the foundation of his privilege.
Review Publishing Co Ltd & another v Lee Hsien LoongCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 52SingaporeCited for the principle that the court has to first identify whether a defamatory statement is one of fact or comment.
Aaron Anne Joseph & Ors v Cheong Yip Seng & OrsCourt of AppealYes[1996] 1 SLR(R) 258SingaporeCited for the principle that any matter affecting people at large so that they may be legitimately interested in what is going on or how they may be affected constitutes matters of public interest.
MCST Plan No. 3720 v Gao ShuchaoMagistrate CourtYes[2017] SGMC 10SingaporeThe trial judge’s grounds of decision is found at MCST Plan No. 3720 v Gao Shuchao [2017] SGMC 10 (“MCST Plan No. 3720”).
Browne v DunnN/AYes(1893) 6 R 67N/AIt is “absolutely essential to the proper conduct of a cause, where it is intended to suggest that a witness is not speaking the truth on a particular point, to direct his attention to the fact by some questions put in cross-examination showing that that imputation is intended to be made”
Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank LtdHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 292SingaporeThe rationale of the rule in Browne is to give the witness an opportunity to respond to allegations made and to explain himself
Chase v News Group Newspapers LtdN/AYes[2003] EMLR 11N/ABased on the three types of statements established in Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2003] EMLR 11 at [45] (“Chase”) as followed in Goh Lay Khim at [91], the Appellant sought to plead a Chase Level 2 type of statement, ie, that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that the acts had been committed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defamation
  • Qualified privilege
  • Malice
  • Fair comment
  • Justification
  • Special Levy
  • Management council
  • Subsidiary proprietor
  • Annual General Meeting
  • Deliberate concealment
  • Misrepresentation

15.2 Keywords

  • defamation
  • qualified privilege
  • malice
  • fair comment
  • justification
  • special levy
  • management council
  • Duchess Residences

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Defamation
  • Tort Law
  • Strata Management
  • Civil Procedure