<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=452><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=452 colSpan=2>Published October 9, 2009
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=452 colSpan=2>Peter Lim wins libel suit on appeal
Defendants in case linked to Raffles Town Club fiasco to pay damages, costs
By JOYCE HOOI
<TABLE class=storyLinks border=0 cellSpacing=4 cellPadding=1 width=136 align=right><TBODY><TR class=font10><TD width=20 align=right>
</TD><TD>Email this article</TD></TR><TR class=font10><TD width=20 align=right>
</TD><TD>Print article </TD></TR><TR class=font10><TD width=20 align=right>
</TD><TD>Feedback</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
(SINGAPORE) Former remisier Peter Lim has emerged victorious in the Singapore Court of Appeal in his defamation suit against Lin Jian Wei and Margaret Tung in a case stemming from the Raffles Town Club (RTC) fiasco.
<TABLE class=picBoxL cellSpacing=2 width=100 align=left><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR class=caption><TD>Mr Lim: Feels vindicated as the Court of Appeal has awarded him costs and aggravated damages </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>As part of the ruling, Mr Lim was awarded aggravated damages. He was also awarded costs for the appeal hearing on a standard basis, and costs for the lower court proceedings on an indemnity basis.
Costs awarded on an indemnity basis are higher than those awarded on a standard basis.
'I'm very happy with the Court of Appeal's judgment,' Mr Lim said yesterday. 'Finally, I'm vindicated. The fact that I was awarded costs with indemnity and aggravated damages shows what the highest court in Singapore thinks of the conduct of the other side.'
The decision by the Court of Appeal - comprising Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and Justices Andrew Phang and V K Rajah - follows a ruling in February by the High Court, which dismissed the defamation lawsuit taken out by Mr Lim against Mr Lin and Ms Tung, who are the current owners of RTC.
Mr Lim sued the two of them in 2007 over several paragraphs in an explanatory statement sent by Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd to 17,374 scheme creditors in 2005 in a bid to settle a separate $50 million lawsuit brought by unhappy club members.
The Court of Appeal's 36-page judgment, released yesterday, says Mr Lin and Ms Tung 'deliberately omitted the equally material aspects of the company's financial history from April 2001 to November 2005 after they had taken over the ownership and management of the company'.
'By such omission, the respondents gave the impression that they themselves were victims of the incompetence, negligence or profligacy of the previous management.'
Despite dismissing the defamation lawsuit in February, the High Court ticked off Mr Lin and Ms Tung for 'unabashedly and systematically' bleeding the company since they took over in 2001.
While the explanatory note at the heart of the lawsuit said that dividends totalling $124 million had been paid since its inception, it did not revealed that a large part of this was paid to Mr Lin and Ms Tung themselves.
Mr Lim had sued them both, on the basis that the explanatory statement implied he was to blame for the company's financial woes.
The Court of Appeal also rejected Mr Lin and Ms Tung's claim of 'qualified privilege', which was previously accepted by the High Court.
Qualified privilege is a special legal right or immunity given to a person for acts properly exercised and without malice. The Court of Appeal, however, found that Mr Lin and Ms Tung acted with 'express malice' in publishing statements about Mr Lim that they knew were untrue.
'They used the occasion for an improper purpose vis-a-vis (Peter Lim), and thereby lost the protection of qualified privilege,' the judgment says.
It also says Mr Lin and Ms Tung 'breached their duty under Section 211 of the Companies Act' by being 'deliberately economical' with the truth and misled the scheme creditors in the explanatory statement.
Breaching Section 211 of the Companies Act carries a penalty of a fine of up to $5,000 or up to 12 months' jail.
After Mr Lin and Ms Tung took over RTC in 2001, the court awarded disgruntled members a total of $50 million in 2005 in a class action lawsuit.
Despite starting out with $206 million in net current assets during the change of ownership in 2001, RTC was unable to fund the $50 million settlement.
RTC then sued the former shareholders - Mr Lim, Lawrence Ang, William Tan and Dennis Foo - for $130 million last year, claiming the four of them breached their fiduciary duties to the club before the takeover.
This lawsuit, started last year in a mega court with six law firms acting for seven parties, is still going on.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=452 colSpan=2>Peter Lim wins libel suit on appeal
Defendants in case linked to Raffles Town Club fiasco to pay damages, costs
By JOYCE HOOI
<TABLE class=storyLinks border=0 cellSpacing=4 cellPadding=1 width=136 align=right><TBODY><TR class=font10><TD width=20 align=right>
</TD><TD>Email this article</TD></TR><TR class=font10><TD width=20 align=right>
</TD><TD>Print article </TD></TR><TR class=font10><TD width=20 align=right>
</TD><TD>Feedback</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>(SINGAPORE) Former remisier Peter Lim has emerged victorious in the Singapore Court of Appeal in his defamation suit against Lin Jian Wei and Margaret Tung in a case stemming from the Raffles Town Club (RTC) fiasco.
<TABLE class=picBoxL cellSpacing=2 width=100 align=left><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR class=caption><TD>Mr Lim: Feels vindicated as the Court of Appeal has awarded him costs and aggravated damages </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>As part of the ruling, Mr Lim was awarded aggravated damages. He was also awarded costs for the appeal hearing on a standard basis, and costs for the lower court proceedings on an indemnity basis.Costs awarded on an indemnity basis are higher than those awarded on a standard basis.
'I'm very happy with the Court of Appeal's judgment,' Mr Lim said yesterday. 'Finally, I'm vindicated. The fact that I was awarded costs with indemnity and aggravated damages shows what the highest court in Singapore thinks of the conduct of the other side.'
The decision by the Court of Appeal - comprising Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and Justices Andrew Phang and V K Rajah - follows a ruling in February by the High Court, which dismissed the defamation lawsuit taken out by Mr Lim against Mr Lin and Ms Tung, who are the current owners of RTC.
Mr Lim sued the two of them in 2007 over several paragraphs in an explanatory statement sent by Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd to 17,374 scheme creditors in 2005 in a bid to settle a separate $50 million lawsuit brought by unhappy club members.
The Court of Appeal's 36-page judgment, released yesterday, says Mr Lin and Ms Tung 'deliberately omitted the equally material aspects of the company's financial history from April 2001 to November 2005 after they had taken over the ownership and management of the company'.
'By such omission, the respondents gave the impression that they themselves were victims of the incompetence, negligence or profligacy of the previous management.'
Despite dismissing the defamation lawsuit in February, the High Court ticked off Mr Lin and Ms Tung for 'unabashedly and systematically' bleeding the company since they took over in 2001.
While the explanatory note at the heart of the lawsuit said that dividends totalling $124 million had been paid since its inception, it did not revealed that a large part of this was paid to Mr Lin and Ms Tung themselves.
Mr Lim had sued them both, on the basis that the explanatory statement implied he was to blame for the company's financial woes.
The Court of Appeal also rejected Mr Lin and Ms Tung's claim of 'qualified privilege', which was previously accepted by the High Court.
Qualified privilege is a special legal right or immunity given to a person for acts properly exercised and without malice. The Court of Appeal, however, found that Mr Lin and Ms Tung acted with 'express malice' in publishing statements about Mr Lim that they knew were untrue.
'They used the occasion for an improper purpose vis-a-vis (Peter Lim), and thereby lost the protection of qualified privilege,' the judgment says.
It also says Mr Lin and Ms Tung 'breached their duty under Section 211 of the Companies Act' by being 'deliberately economical' with the truth and misled the scheme creditors in the explanatory statement.
Breaching Section 211 of the Companies Act carries a penalty of a fine of up to $5,000 or up to 12 months' jail.
After Mr Lin and Ms Tung took over RTC in 2001, the court awarded disgruntled members a total of $50 million in 2005 in a class action lawsuit.
Despite starting out with $206 million in net current assets during the change of ownership in 2001, RTC was unable to fund the $50 million settlement.
RTC then sued the former shareholders - Mr Lim, Lawrence Ang, William Tan and Dennis Foo - for $130 million last year, claiming the four of them breached their fiduciary duties to the club before the takeover.
This lawsuit, started last year in a mega court with six law firms acting for seven parties, is still going on.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
