Defamation claim in Sim Lim Square MCST dispute dismissed
The former secretary of Sim Lim Square's management council brought the claim against the former chairman and managing agent's director, over documents sent to unit owners and tenants. (Photo: Samuel Isaac Chua / EdgeProp Singapore)
A defamation claim arising from a fallout within Sim Lim Square's management at the time — involving documents that contained allegations against certain council members — has been dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
District Judge Samuel Wee ruled against the claimant, Stephen Tan, the former secretary of the management council of Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 1440 (MCST 1440) for Sim Lim Square.
Tan had brought the claim against Chan Yeok Pheng, the council's former chairman, and Kelvin Toi, a director of Avalon Asset Management, the former managing agent for the development.
The dispute centred on Sim Lim Square, a strata-titled commercial complex in Rochor known for electronics and tech retailers alongside repair shops, offices and other small businesses. The development, completed in 1987, houses nearly 500 retail and office units across six floors and two basement levels.
In a strata development, the management council is made up of elected subsidiary proprietors and represents owners' interests and oversees estate-level decisions. The managing agent, a professional firm appointed by the council, handles day-to-day operations such as security, cleaning and maintenance.
Documents and allegations
The case concerned four documents circulated in print to unit owners and tenants of Sim Lim Square in July 2023: three police reports filed by Toi and a letter sent in the name of "management" without further identifying the author.
Among other things, the documents alleged that Tan, then council secretary, and the council's treasurer had entered the management office without authorisation — including engaging a third party to break the lock — removed the MCST’s common seal, as well as required the managing agent to vacate the office.
The letter, which referred to an ongoing "saga" within the management council, was circulated together with the police reports.
Tan alleged that both defendants, Chan and Toi, had instructed two unidentified individuals to distribute physical copies of the documents to all units in Sim Lim Square.
Tan also contended that Toi was acting as Chan’s "puppet", and thus Toi’s actions should be attributed to Chan.
Why the claim failed
In a judgment dated Jan 27, Justice Wee found that Tan had failed to prove that the defendants, Chan and Toi, were responsible for publishing the statements Tan said had defamed him.
As a result, the court did not go on to consider whether the statements were defamatory of Tan or whether the recipients had read them.
While Tan's distrust of the defendants led him to suspect their involvement, suspicion alone was not enough to discharge his burden of proof, the judge said. Tan still needed to establish that either one of them had instructed the two unidentified persons to distribute the statements.
Both defendants consistently denied involvement, and Tan did not provide any evidential basis to discredit them beyond pointing to memory lapses and inconsistencies in other parts of their evidence.
The court also rejected Tan's argument that Toi was "concocting evidence on the stand" merely because Toi had raised certain points during cross-examination that were not previously set out in his affidavit.
Others in Sim Lim Square could have accessed documents
The dispute arose against the backdrop of tensions over the common seal — the MCST’s official physical stamp to authenticate legal documents and contracts — which had earlier been reported missing, as well as concerns mentioned in the documents about the CCTV system in the office being disconnected.
Although Toi had filed the police reports, it is possible that other individuals could have taken and circulated them without the defendants' knowledge.
The three police reports were stored in the management office, which was accessible by many people, including council members, managing agent staff and subsidiary proprietors. The reports were not kept secretly and securely.
The judge also noted that the claimant Tan himself had previously removed the common seal from the office without Toi's knowledge, illustrating that items could be taken without the defendants being aware.
To this end, Tan’s decision to allow the CCTV system in the management office to be disconnected "deprived him of potential evidence" that might have clarified who actually accessed and circulated the documents, the court added.
Other arguments rejected
Circumstantial evidence likewise did not adequately link either defendant to the two unidentified distributors.
Remarks that Chan made at the MCST council meeting several days after the statements were distributed — including that "the whole of Sim Lim [Square] will get a copy" and "if you think the report is wrong, you can sue me" — were not admissions of publication, as they did not establish a clear, unambiguous link to the distribution of the statements.
The court also rejected Tan’s contention that Toi was Chan’s "puppet", observing that it missed the point because Tan had not first established that Toi distributed the documents, leaving no act that could be attributed to Chan.
Source: EdgeProp LandLens
For more news and analysis, read our weekly e-paper. Prefer a print copy? Get it delivered to your home or office every Monday.
Follow Us
Property updates, 24/7.
Subscribe to Newsletter
Market insights, delivered weekly.
Top Articles
Search