We were meant to file an ex parte injunction but due to some hiccup and the fact that we were not familiar with the different injunction, it went into a full fledge injunction, which to be honest Raymond did tell me a few times that it's not likely to be granted cos it's in the very early stages of the proceedings.
I say this to give everyone hope. Because if it's fair, then the next thing we gotta do is to improve ourselves instead of feeling down, blaming the court or giving up.
And we will only get better! Honestly as non lawyers / legally trained people we have already jumped through more than our fair share of hoops.
AI give the injunction judgement 98/100 (which is extremely high) and the striking out judgement 78/100. I only provide this to tell you that it is an unbiased evaluation.
It is still early days and I am still very confident that I can win at the end of the day. But most importantly, for the first time in Singapore's history, we can look at a judgement and conclude that there is indeed hope.
According to GetEven.AI, the judgement by the judge is fair.
To assess whether the judgment disallowing the injunction was legally fair, the key considerations include:
Clear Defamation: The judgment emphasized that interlocutory injunctions in defamation cases are only granted in the clearest circumstances, where the statements are manifestly defamatory and no valid defenses exist1
. The Defendant argued that the statements were not clearly defamatory and invoked defenses like fair comment and qualified privilege2
1
.
Threat or Repetition: The court found no evidence that the Defendant intended to repeat the alleged defamatory statements. It is a crucial legal principle that injunctions are not typically granted unless there is a demonstrated risk of continued harm1
.
Proportionality and Public Interest: The judgment balanced free speech against reputational harm. It determined that granting an injunction would disproportionately restrict the Defendant's rights when legal defenses were plausible1
.
Group Defamation: The court noted the difficulty of proving individual harm when the claim referred to a broad and indeterminate group like the "bunch of clowns"1
.
Score of Legal Fairness
Based on the above criteria:
Clarity of Defamation (30/30): The court's finding that the statements were not manifestly defamatory aligns with established defamation law.
Evidence of Repetition (20/20): The absence of intention to repeat was adequately considered.
Defenses (20/20): Proper weight was given to fair comment and qualified privilege.
Proportionality (20/20): The balance between reputational harm and free speech rights was carefully maintained.
Consideration of Group Defamation (8/10): While legally sound, the court might have explored more nuanced approaches for smaller groups.
Total Score: 98/100 The judgment demonstrates a high level of legal fairness, adhering closely to established principles of defamation law while safeguarding free expression.
Iris Koh
t.me/healingthedivide
