Judgment Header
Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP [2000] SGHC 111
Court DecisionSGHC
[2000] SGHC 111
[2000] SGHC 111
General Division of the High Court of Singapore19 Jun 2000Suit 1896/1998
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 11 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
11Later cases and laws citing this decision
“gnant negative”: a traverse by denial of a negative averment that imports a positive assertion of fact, for which particulars may be requested. As explained in Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP [2000] SGHC 111 at [204]:”
“nt pursuant to a legal, social or moral duty, or in the furtherance of a legitimate interest, to a person with a corresponding duty or interest to receive it: see Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor [2000] SGHC 111 at [242]. By s 12(1) of the Defamation Act read with Part I of the Schedule thereto, qualified privilege”
“ings: Soon Peck Wah v Woon Che Chye [1997] 3 SLR(R) 430 (“Soon Peck Wah”) at [34]. The position was clearly articulated by Chan Seng Onn JC (as he then was) in Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP [2000] SGHC 111 (“Arul Chandran”). He held at [142] that under the hearsay rule, factual findings in a foreign judgment”
“f the publication and after the publication including the entire surrounding circumstances, must be viewed in totality in determining whether there was malice (Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP [2000] SGHC 111 (“Arul”) at [301]). In the present case, a consideration of all the circumstances fails to show that the”
“The Plaintiffs also referred me to the decision in Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP [2000] SGHC 111 (“Arul Chandran”). I shall cite more out of that judgment than the Plaintiffs referred me to because it is also relevant to the question of evidence on the Substantive Issue which I shall consider be”
Show 6 moreShow fewer
“prior to the publication, at the time of the publication and after the publication, including the entire surrounding circumstances, must be viewed in totality: Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP [2000] SGHC 111 (“Arul Chandran (HC)”) at [301].”
“prior to the publication, at the time of the publication and after the publication, including the entire surrounding circumstances, must be viewed in totality: Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP [2000] SGHC 111 at [301].”
“edly defamatory publication has more than one “sting”, then CDI has to justify all the “stings”, otherwise it will be held liable for the unjustified “stings” (Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP [2000] SGHC 111 at [136]).”
“The applicable principles are illustrated in Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor [2000] SGHC 111 (“Arul Chandran”). In Arul Chandran, the plaintiff (“Arul”), a member of the Tanglin Club, sued the defendant (“Chew”), another member of the Tanglin Club, for the publication of three letters. In th”
“of an earlier judicial determination as a final judgment of a competent court, and to establish what the causes of action, parties, and issues previously were: Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP [2000] SGHC 111 at [141] (on appeal, the Court of Appeal in Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor [2001] SLR(R) 86 (“Arul”
“f the same Act deems such judgments irrelevant unless the existence of such judgments are facts in issue or are relevant under another provision of the Act. In Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JP [2000] SGHC 111, the High Court discussed these provisions at [141] as follows:”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit 1896/1998
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2000-06-19
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.