Search the Community

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/blogger-awarded-60000-in-damages-after-winning-defamation-suit A blogger, who has been featured riding her motorcycle overseas various times by the media, was awarded $60,000 in damages after winning a defamation suit in the State Courts on Tuesday (Dec 15). After a three-day trial, the court found that social media personality Vaune Phan had been defamed by Mr Mark Yeow on four occasions last year. He had posted three defamatory statements on Facebook and had sent a separate one to a WhatsApp chat group, according to court documents. Ms Phan was represented by lawyers Suresh Divyanathan and Cherisse Foo from Oon & Bazul LLP. Mr Yeow, the chief mechanic at a motorcycle workshop and the operations director at another, was represented by lawyers Luo Ling Ling and Sharifah Nabilah from Luo Ling Ling LLP. Among other things, he had insinuated that Ms Phan had lied during proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) over her dispute with another motorcycle workshop, Revology Bikes. The blogger had claimed that Revology damaged her motorcycle when it reinstalled a camera that it had previously fixed on the vehicle. In her SCT claim filed on Dec 21, 2018, she said there was a "sizeable gap" between the fairings and the body of the motorcycle after it was returned to her. Ms Phan published a Facebook post on Dec 30 that year, with a link documenting the incident with Revology. Court documents state that Mr Yeow published a series of comments on her post on Jan 5 last year. He called her a "cheapskate", "freeloader" and "poser", among other things, and also accused her of cyber bullying. In a Facebook post the next month, he questioned her integrity and her claim that Rexology had caused the gap between the fairings and the body of her motorcycle. He also tagged Ms Phan's past, present and potential sponsors, business partners and other motorcycle workshops in his post. Mr Yeow subsequently included a link to the post in a message to a WhatsApp chat group, in which he also used the words "cheating" and "karma" in March that year. In the same month, the SCT ordered Revology to pay the blogger $4,630 as compensation. Mr Yeow later received a letter from Ms Phan's then lawyers, Parwani Law LLC, demanding that he remove his Facebook post and his Jan 5 comments. But he commented about Ms Phan again in May last year, on a Facebook post by electronics company Samsung. The post was an advertisement for a new mobile phone and featured the blogger, who had been contracted to promote it. Addressing Samsung with another Facebook account, he said the company "should do some homework and fact finding before hiring an influencer" and that there were plenty of capable individuals "who can show you what dirt biking means". The advertisement was later removed, and Ms Phan's contract to promote the mobile phone was terminated. On Tuesday, District Judge Wong Peck rejected Mr Yeow's claim that the blogger's popularity was already waning prior to the remarks being made, finding that she had an extensive online social media presence and that her reputation had been lowered by the statements. The judge also said in her judgment that his remarks were not justified. Among other things, she disagreed with his explanation that Ms Phan's behaviour had caused loss to Revology's business and was therefore "cyber bullying". "As the SCT ruling stands and Revology has paid compensation to the plaintiff pursuant to such ruling, I disagree how such facts when made public can constitute cyber bullying," the judge added. Noting Mr Yeow's attempts to prove that the blogger had lied during the SCT proceedings, she said: "My view is that it is not open to this court to examine the SCT decision and findings of fact." The district judge also ordered Mr Yeow to pay legal costs to Ms Phan, as well as to take down his Facebook statements and refrain from making similar defamatory remarks against her again. But the judge did not allow Ms Phan's claim for damages of $6,404 for the termination of her contract with Samsung, ruling that the blogger had not proven the termination was due to Mr Yeow's statements. Thanking her lawyers in a statement to The Straits Times, Ms Phan said she was not suing for personal gain but to protect her reputation and the clients she works with. "After recovery of my full legal costs, I will donate the remainder of the damages... to charity," she said. Mr Yeow told ST that he intends to appeal against the decision.

Lai.. Yi-Nang vs TOC. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/online-citizen-website-under-police-investigation-criminal-defamation

http://thehearttruths.com/ https://www.facebook.com/ChannelNewsAsiaSingapore/posts/10152117852852934 typp: Mods pls help edit my topic title as the blogger has not had legal action taken against him yet... but the article is still accesible in his blog...???

dun believe anything you read in HWZ? i want to sell my 12 years old account in mcf, who want to buy?

MyCarForum is serious about protecting the intellectual property and good name of its owners. We have policies in place for dealing with any breaches or suspected breaches of your copyright, trade mark, reputation or any other legal right. If you feel a post on our forums infringes your rights/reputation or that of your business, please email "support[at]mycarforum.com" with full details of the post, your real name and your business name. The more details you include, the quicker we can act on your claim. If you claim breach of copyright or trade mark, please provide us with details of your original works or a trade mark registration number so we can verify your claim. If you claim a post or thread defames you, please provide the reason for your stand. MyCarForum operates in a "live" environment. Posts and threads are not moderated prior to being published. In simple terms, we are not aware of that post, unless it is brought to our attention. After you have sent us the details required, we will take the necessary actions on the said forum post within 30 working days.

Hi guys, Just wanted to find out more about such procedures, e.g cost and how long will it usually take? and what other gains can you get other that redress. Many thanks

SINGAPORE - The Court of Appeal on Wednesday ordered the owners of Raffles Town Club (RTC) to pay private investor Peter Lim $210,000 in damages. Mr Lim had won a defamation suit against RTC owners Lin Jian Wei and Margaret Tung in October last year. The amount is the highest awarded to a non-political figure in Singapore and is three times the $70,000 damages Mr Lin and Ms Tung argued should be paid. The previous record was $150,000 awarded to lawyer Arul Chandran in a libel case. In his judgment, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong disagreed with Mr Lin and Ms Tung that the defamation - stemming from the RTC fiasco - was not serious. "Not only did the respondents deliberately and knowingly use the court process to defame the appellant, in the process misleading the court in order to protect their own investment in the company, they also pleaded the defence of justification unjustifiably and refused to tender any apology or make amends," he wrote. He noted that Mr Lim is a prominent businessman and investor who built up a formidable reputation in the stock broking industry as the "Remisier King", and was frequently cited as one of the richest men in Singapore and Asia. The defamatory remarks "attacked his professional reputation and standing (and) called into question his competence, integrity and business acumen", the Chief Justice added. A very pleased Mr Lim said he was matching the damages dollar-for-dollar and donating the total of $420,000 to the Straits Times School Pocket Money Fund. source http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/sin...1072047/1/.html

Hi all, In recent years, forums have evolve from being a discussion and chit chat medium to a place where users now log onto to share views and share feedback on personal experience. Potential buyers are now savvy enough to ask around or read on forums before purchasing Bad purchases, rouge dealers, unfair practices, unreasonable pricing have all been posted in one way or another by end users My question is that, what then constitute a defamation?? For eg, I wrote about a bad experience about car dealer XXYYZZ and in return company ring me up and want to sue me for defamation. Is the phrase "Sue you for defamation" a way use to frighten off net users or to indirectly tell us watch your mouth and what you say! If one day such incident do happen on you, will you stand up strongly for your rights and belief that what you have posted is true or issue an apology to ease matters off? views?