When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Saturday 10 October 2009
Remisier king Peter Lim wins defamation suit
Billionaire investor Peter Lim has won a defamation suit against the main shareholders of Raffles Town Club (RTC), after the Court of Appeal ruled in his favour yesterday.
2 RTC shareholders had omitted vital info, ‘acted with malice’, court rules
By Yang Huiwen 09 October 2009
Billionaire investor Peter Lim has won a defamation suit against the main shareholders of Raffles Town Club (RTC), after the Court of Appeal ruled in his favour yesterday.
The stunning verdict is likely to lead to a big payout for Mr. Lim as the court also ordered the defendants - Mr. Lin Jian Wei and Ms. Margaret Tung - to pay aggravated damages and cost to Mr. Lim.
Legal costs are also expected to be substantial as the litigants were represented by high-powered lawyers.
Mr. Lin and Ms. Tung were represented by Senior Counsel Ang Cheng Hock of Allen & Gledhill while Mr. Lim’s lawyer was Senior Counsel Alvin Yeo from Wong Partnership.
Mr. Lim, who is popularly known as the ‘remisier king’, had claimed that a statement signed by Mr. Lin and Ms. Tung was defamatory as it implied that RTC’s financial difficulties were due to mismanagement by the original directors.
Mr. Lim, who was one of the club’s founders, was alleged to be a de facto director.
This was Mr. Lim’s second attempt at clearing his name, after his defamation action was dismissed by the High Court in February.
Justice Chan Seng Onn had at that time found the statement to be defamatory, but ruled that it was published on an occasion of qualified privilege and that the purpose was not to hurt Mr. Lim’s reputation.
The statement, issued in 2005, was to explain a scheme of payment the club had to make to its members who had successfully sued it for recruiting too many members. The club had to come up with the scheme as it was unable to pay the damages.
This is where the Appeal Court took a different view to the High Court’s.
In its 34-page ruling, the three-judge Appeal Court found Mr. Lin and Ms. Tung to have acted with malice when they deliberately made half-true and misleading statements that defamed Mr. Lim.
The defence of qualified privilege fails if it can be shown that the defendants have acted with malice.
The Appeal Court ruled that the respondents had tried to conceal their past actions and had instead pushed the blame to Mr. Lim for the club’s dire financial straits.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, in giving the Appeal Court’s decision, said Mr. Lin and Ms. Tung ‘chose to be economical with the truth, instead of being candid with it’ by telling half-truths to put the blame on Mr. Lim for the club’s financial plight, in a bid to get the scheme approved by its creditors.
‘The scheme was simply a convenient means to cover up their past actions in extracting as much cash out of the company as they effectively could as proprietors of the club,’ said CJ Chan.
The Appeal Court noted the duo had ‘deliberately omitted’ material information on how they had bled the company dry since they took over ownership and control in 2001, said CJ Chan.
The firm had current assets of $206 million and receivables of $65 million in April 2001 when Mr. Lin and Ms. Tung took control, but was left with just $1 million in cash reserves, $7 million in receivables and $5.8 million that was paid into court in July 2005.
Mr. Lin and Ms. Tung had declared $55.1 million in dividends to themselves and a further $70 million to two former directors who had sold them ownership of the club, effectively procuring the shares for free.
Such omission ‘gave the impression that they themselves were victims of the incompetence, negligence or profligacy of the previous management’.
The Appeal Court also noted that the pair had breached their duty under Section 211 of the Companies Act by misleading the scheme’s creditors.
‘I’m very happy with the Court of Appeal’s judgment. Finally, I’m fully vindicated,’ said Mr. Lim. ‘The fact that I was awarded cost with indemnity and aggravated damages shows what the highest court in Singapore thinks of the conduct of the other side.’
1 comment:
Remisier king Peter Lim wins defamation suit
2 RTC shareholders had omitted vital info, ‘acted with malice’, court rules
By Yang Huiwen
09 October 2009
Billionaire investor Peter Lim has won a defamation suit against the main shareholders of Raffles Town Club (RTC), after the Court of Appeal ruled in his favour yesterday.
The stunning verdict is likely to lead to a big payout for Mr. Lim as the court also ordered the defendants - Mr. Lin Jian Wei and Ms. Margaret Tung - to pay aggravated damages and cost to Mr. Lim.
Legal costs are also expected to be substantial as the litigants were represented by high-powered lawyers.
Mr. Lin and Ms. Tung were represented by Senior Counsel Ang Cheng Hock of Allen & Gledhill while Mr. Lim’s lawyer was Senior Counsel Alvin Yeo from Wong Partnership.
Mr. Lim, who is popularly known as the ‘remisier king’, had claimed that a statement signed by Mr. Lin and Ms. Tung was defamatory as it implied that RTC’s financial difficulties were due to mismanagement by the original directors.
Mr. Lim, who was one of the club’s founders, was alleged to be a de facto director.
This was Mr. Lim’s second attempt at clearing his name, after his defamation action was dismissed by the High Court in February.
Justice Chan Seng Onn had at that time found the statement to be defamatory, but ruled that it was published on an occasion of qualified privilege and that the purpose was not to hurt Mr. Lim’s reputation.
The statement, issued in 2005, was to explain a scheme of payment the club had to make to its members who had successfully sued it for recruiting too many members. The club had to come up with the scheme as it was unable to pay the damages.
This is where the Appeal Court took a different view to the High Court’s.
In its 34-page ruling, the three-judge Appeal Court found Mr. Lin and Ms. Tung to have acted with malice when they deliberately made half-true and misleading statements that defamed Mr. Lim.
The defence of qualified privilege fails if it can be shown that the defendants have acted with malice.
The Appeal Court ruled that the respondents had tried to conceal their past actions and had instead pushed the blame to Mr. Lim for the club’s dire financial straits.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, in giving the Appeal Court’s decision, said Mr. Lin and Ms. Tung ‘chose to be economical with the truth, instead of being candid with it’ by telling half-truths to put the blame on Mr. Lim for the club’s financial plight, in a bid to get the scheme approved by its creditors.
‘The scheme was simply a convenient means to cover up their past actions in extracting as much cash out of the company as they effectively could as proprietors of the club,’ said CJ Chan.
The Appeal Court noted the duo had ‘deliberately omitted’ material information on how they had bled the company dry since they took over ownership and control in 2001, said CJ Chan.
The firm had current assets of $206 million and receivables of $65 million in April 2001 when Mr. Lin and Ms. Tung took control, but was left with just $1 million in cash reserves, $7 million in receivables and $5.8 million that was paid into court in July 2005.
Mr. Lin and Ms. Tung had declared $55.1 million in dividends to themselves and a further $70 million to two former directors who had sold them ownership of the club, effectively procuring the shares for free.
Such omission ‘gave the impression that they themselves were victims of the incompetence, negligence or profligacy of the previous management’.
The Appeal Court also noted that the pair had breached their duty under Section 211 of the Companies Act by misleading the scheme’s creditors.
‘I’m very happy with the Court of Appeal’s judgment. Finally, I’m fully vindicated,’ said Mr. Lim. ‘The fact that I was awarded cost with indemnity and aggravated damages shows what the highest court in Singapore thinks of the conduct of the other side.’
Post a Comment