Tan Wee Jin (Chen Weiren) v German Dragons Singapore & 11 Ors

1. District Judge Sim Mei Ling:

2. Introduction

3. [1]

   [1] The 1st defendant (“GDS”) is a registered society under the Societies Act 1966. Its objects include participating in both national and international dragon boat races and organising social and competitive events for members and non-members.

4. [2]

   [2] The claimant was formerly GDS’ Team Coach from February 2015 until 11 August 2023. The 2nd to 12th defendants were at the material time, members of GDS. Some of them were also officeholders.

5. [3]

   [3] The present proceedings arise out of a deck of slides which were presented at GDS’ extraordinary general meeting on 1 September 2023 (the “EGM”).

6. [4]

   [4] The claimant alleged that the contents of the slides were defamatory and that the defendants conspired with the intention to injure him.

7. [5]

   [5] The defendants denied that the slides were defamatory and additionally relied on the defences of justification and qualified privilege. They also denied the existence of any conspiracy.

8. [6]

   [6] After considering the evidence and parties’ submissions, I find that the claimant has failed to establish his claims in defamation and conspiracy. These are my reasons.

9. Brief facts

10. [7]

    [7] GDS is administered by an Executive Committee (the “Ex-Co”). This consists of a President (Team Captain), Secretary, Treasurer, Men’s Captain, Women’s Captain, Sports Director and a Team Affairs Officer.

11. [8]

    [8] GDS has a Technical Committee which is entrusted with training and race aspects of all competitions (“Tech-Co”). It comprises the Team Captain, Women’s Captain, Men’s Captain, and Sports Director.

12. [9]

    [9] The 2023 Ex-Co initially comprised:

13. Position

14. Name

15. Team Captain

16. Ms Connie Ip (“Ms Ip”)

17. Secretary

18. Ms Erin Tham (“Ms Tham”)

19. Treasurer

20. The 12th defendant, Ms Debra Halverson (“Ms Halverson”)

21. Men’s Captain

22. The 8th defendant, Mr Sujathe Samarakkody (“Mr Sujathe”)

23. Women’s Captain

24. The 10th defendant, Ms Perima Louise Seck Lee Low (“Ms Low”)

25. Sports Director

26. The 11th defendant, Mr Derel Esteban Benjamin Alban (“Mr Alban”)

27. Team Affairs Officer

28. The 9th defendant, Mr Kevin Truong (“Mr Truong”)

29. [10]

    [10] Sometime in early July 2023, Mr Sujathe informed Ms Ip that some members had asked him to sign a petition calling for an emergency general meeting to be convened to consider if the claimant should be removed as Team Coach (“Petition”).

30. [11]

    [11] Ms Ip informed the claimant of the Petition in early July.

31. [12]

    [12] On 9 August 2023, Ms Ip resigned as Team Captain.

32. [13]

    [13] On 11 August 2023, the claimant sent a message in the WhatsApp chatgroup titled “GDS Booking”, informing GDS members that he would not continue with GDS. He asserted that there was a petition by a group of “keyboard warriors” who “think they know better how a team should be like” . He stated that all his “decisions have been made in the best interest of the team” but it “seems people are trying to twist things around”. He also accused an unnamed Tech-Co member of having an “interest [that] is not aligned with this team” and asserted that he would in future choose a sports director who will be “actually contributing to the team and not starting some petition while thinking weights training is too hard”.

33. [14]

    [14] As of the date of the claimant’s resignation, the Petition had not been submitted to the Ex-Co. It was Ms Low’s and Mr Alban’s evidence that it was not eventually submitted.

34. [15]

    [15] On 12 August 2023, Ms Tham resigned as Secretary.

35. [16]

    [16] Notice of the EGM was circulated on 21 August 2023. The proposed agenda was to address allegations of bullying and harassment, the Petition, identify a new coach, elect a Team Captain and Secretary, and any other agenda items as requested by members. A further email with the finalised agenda was sent on 29 August 2023.

36. [17]

    [17] The EGM was held on 1 September 2023. Based on the minutes of the EGM, a total of 46 members attended: 41 in person, and 5 online. . 2 of the claimant’s witnesses, Mr Abhinava Moreddy (“Mr Abhinava”) and Ms Tan Shu Yi (“Ms Tan”), were members who attended the EGM in person. The claimant was not in attendance as he was not a member of GDS. There is a dispute as to whether 2 alleged non-members were also present.

37. [18]

    [18] Several of the defendants presented at the EGM, in the following order :

38. (a) Ms Low and Mr Sujathe, who were the acting co-Captains, delivered an opening address;

39. (b) Mr Truong addressed members on the slides titled “Allegation of Bullying and Harassment”;

40. (c) The 6th defendant, Mr Alexander Lamprecht (“Mr Lamprecht”), who was an honorary auditor of GDS in 2023 , gave a presentation on GDS’ constitution;

41. (d) The 4th defendant, Ms Regina Isabel (“Ms Isabel”) and the 5th defendant, Ms Tracie Ooi (“Ms Ooi”) presented various slides on the Petition (Ms Isabel was GDS’ Women’s Captain in 2022 and a general member in 2023. Ms Ooi was GDS’ Secretary in 2022 and a general member in 2023 );

42. (e) Ms Low reported on the steps taken to identify a new coach; and

43. (f) Mr Alban conducted an election to fill the vacant Ex-Co roles.

44. [19]

    [19] The 2nd defendant, Mr Alexander Koch (“Mr Koch”), was elected the new GDS Team Captain at the EGM.

45. [20]

    [20] On 23 October 2023, Mr Abhinava contacted Mr Sujathe to request a copy of the slides. Mr Sujathe provided the slides to Mr Abhinava, who forwarded them to Ms Ip. On 6 November 2023, Ms Ip forwarded the slides to the claimant.

46. The Proceedings

47. [21]

    [21] The claimant commenced these proceedings on 20 March 2024. Apart from GDS and the 9 individual defendants identified earlier, the claimant also sued:

48. (a) The 3rd defendant – Mr Saunak Biswas (“Mr Saunak”), GDS’ Team Captain in 2022 ; and

49. (b) The 7th defendant – Mr Xia Chenhui (“Mr Xia”), a GDS member.

50. [22]

    [22] The claimant subsequently discontinued his action against Mr Koch, Mr Saunak, Mr Xia and Mr Sujathe. Ms Isabel initially participated in proceedings but did not eventually attend trial. I will refer to GDS, Ms Ooi, Mr Lamprecht, Mr Truong, Ms Low, Mr Alban, and Ms Halverson collectively as the “Remaining Defendants.”

51. [23]

    [23] There was initially a dispute as to which slides were presented at the EGM. The claimant had pleaded that the slides annexed to the Statement of Claim (totalling 39) were presented. This included a slide titled “Bonus Track: Why was WJ not removed at end of 2022?” (“Bonus Track Slide”). The defendants denied that the Bonus Track Slide was displayed at the EGM or shared with members and claimed that it always remained on the server.

52. [24]

    [24] The claimant conceded on the stand that Mr Abhinava had informed him that the Bonus Track Slide was not presented at the EGM. In the claimant’s closing submissions, the claimant did not refer to the Bonus Track Slide as containing words defamatory of him . He also took the position that only 38 slides were presented at the EGM .

53. [25]

    [25] I therefore take it that the claimant is no longer maintaining that the Bonus Track Slide was also presented at the EGM or asserting that it was defamatory. I will henceforth refer to the 38 slides presented at the EGM (i.e. excluding the Bonus Track Slide) as the “Slides”.

54. [26]

    [26] It transpired in the course of these proceedings that Ms Ooi had drafted the Petition and ran the Petition by Ms Isabel, Ms Low and another GDS member, one Ms Christiane Meissner (“Ms Meissner”). Ms Isabel and Ms Meissner had signed the Petition. Among the Remaining Defendants, only Ms Ooi , Ms Low , Mr Alban and Ms Halverson signed the Petition. Mr Truong did not sign it. While the claimant has submitted that Mr Lamprecht was also a signatory, for the reasons I will come to further below, I am not convinced that he was. For ease of reference, I will refer to a person who had signed the Petition as a “Petitioner”.

55. Are the elements of defamation made out?

56. [27]

    [27] To establish defamation, the claimant must show:

57. (a) There was a statement bearing a defamatory meaning;

58. (b) There was publication to a third party; and

59. (c) The statement referred to the claimant.

60. Golden Season Pte Ltd and others v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd and another [2015] 2 SLR 7518 (“Golden Season”) at [35].

61. Was there publication?

62. [28]

    [28] The claimant pleaded that the Slides were published in the following manner :

63. (a) The Slides were presented to at least 46 members of GDS and 2 non-members during the EGM;

64. (b) The minutes of the EGM were disseminated by email to at least 81 members of GDS;

65. (c) The Ex-Co of GDS would provide a copy of the Slides upon request by a member of GDS; and

66. (d) The Slides have since been circulated outside of GDS as the claimant was sent a copy of the Slides on or around 6 November 2023.

67. [29]

    [29] The defendants denied that there was publication. They claimed that the Slides were only shown to members of GDS who had attended the EGM.

68. Were the Slides also shown to members who attended the EGM virtually?

69. [30]

    [30] The Remaining Defendants said that the Slides were only shown to the 41 members who physically attended the EGM and not the 5 members who attended the EGM virtually.

70. [31]

    [31] The claimant has not adduced any evidence that the Slides were also shown to the 5 members who attended the EGM virtually.

71. Did presentation of the Slides to members of GDS amount to publication?

72. [32]

    [32] I find that presenting the Slides to GDS’ members at the EGM amounts to publication.

73. [33]

    [33] Publication occurs when the defamatory statement is communicated to a third party: Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore – Defamation (Volume 8(2A)), (LexisNexis Singapore) at [96.065].

74. [34]

    [34] A third party for the purpose of establishing publication is a recipient that is distinct and external to both the alleged defaming party and the alleged defamed party: Karan Baga v Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute [2024] 5 SLR 1104 (“Karan Baga”) at [39].

75. [35]

    [35] In Karan Baga, the court found that publication was not made out as the statements complained of were directed by the defendant, a non-profit-making foundation, to the defendant’s board of directors, executive board and an accreditation committee. These bodies were held to be internal to the defendant and were therefore found not to be “third parties’ relative to the defendant.

76. [36]

    [36] In contrast to Karan Baga, GDS’ members cannot be said to be a ‘body’ internal to GDS.

77. [37]

    [37] The effect of the Societies Act 1966 is to give societies registered under it a legal persona, such that in effect they are a “near-corporation” or “quasi corporation”: Chen Cheng v Central Christian Church (“Chen Cheng”) [1995] 3 SLR(R) 806 at [38]. This can be gleaned from provisions such as s 35(1)(b) which provides that a registered society can sue or be sued in its own name, and s 35(1)(d) which provides that no judgment in any suit against a registered society shall be put into force against the person or property of any officer or member of the society. A distinction is therefore drawn between the members of the society and the registered society itself.

78. [38]

    [38] GDS’ members also did not attend the EGM in the ordinary course of business on behalf of GDS, but in their personal capacity.

79. [39]

    [39] GDS’ members, as a group of natural persons, are therefore third parties that are distinct and external from the claimant, Ms Isabel and the Remaining Defendants for the purpose of establishing publication.

80. Were non-members in attendance at the EGM?

81. [40]

    [40] Even if GDS’ members are not third parties, there was still publication as 2 non-members of GDS also attended the EGM .

82. [41]

    [41] According to Mr Abhinava, he noticed Ms Wakana Sasaki (“Ms Wakana”) and Ms Nirasha, 2 non-members, at the EGM. Ms Wakana was Mr Koch’s girlfriend, while Ms Nirasha is the wife of another member, Alex Gummenscheimer, who himself was present at the EGM.

83. [42]

    [42] The defendants pleaded that Ms Wakana was a member of GDS. However, they have not adduced any proof of this. On the contrary, Ms Wakana’s name was not reflected in the EGM’s minutes under the list of GDS members who attended.

84. [43]

    [43] As for Ms Nirasha, the defendants pleaded that she only accompanied her husband and did not participate in the EGM, and that GDS had no knowledge of the duration she was at the EGM. However, the Remaining Defendants have adduced no evidence of this. Ms Ooi, Mr Lamprecht, Mr Truong, Ms Low, Mr Alban and Ms Halverson’s affidavits of evidence-in-chief (“AEICs”) were silent on this. Mr Koch merely claimed that he was unaware of the 2 non-members allegedly present, as the room was crowded on the night of the EGM.

85. Were the Slides provided to GDS members after the EGM?

86. [44]

    [44] I am not convinced that the Ex-Co provided the Slides to members of GDS, beyond one instance where Mr Sujathe provided a copy to Mr Abhinava on his request.

87. [45]

    [45] The Remaining Defendants’ evidence was consistent. Before the EGM commenced, Ms Low informed GDS members who were present that the Slides were not to be printed, distributed electronically or otherwise, or disclosed outside the meeting room. She also requested members not to photograph the Slides or record the proceedings.

88. [46]

    [46] There is no evidence before the Court that the Slides were circulated after the EGM or were sent by the Ex-Co to any other GDS member other than Mr Abhinava. Only the minutes of the EGM had been emailed by GDS’ Secretary to 83 members. The claimant has not alleged that the minutes were also defamatory of him.

89. [47]

    [47] That was also the claimant’s witnesses’ evidence. Ms Tan and Ms Tham did not receive the Slides. Mr Abhinava said he only requested a copy from Mr Sujathe because the Slides had not been sent to members. It was Mr Abhinava who provided the Slides to Ms Ip , who in turn shared them with Ms Quah Geok Choo March Steffi (“Ms Quah”), another GDS member and a witness for the claimant. In fact, Ms Ip had requested a copy of the Slides from Mr Koch but he declined her request.

90. Were the Slides circulated outside GDS

91. [48]

    [48] Neither is there proof that the Slides were circulated to non-GDS members.

92. [49]

    [49] The Remaining Defendants said that the Slides remain stored in GDS’ Google Drive, accessible only to the Ex-Co. The claimant agreed on the stand that he did not know the extent to which the Slides were circulated outside GDS. The only basis for his claim that they were, was because Ms Ip had sent the Slides to him.

93. [50]

    [50] However, as mentioned earlier, the only reason why Ms Ip had the Slides was because Mr Abhinava had requested them from Mr Sujathe, and passed them to her. This is not sufficient to show that there was circulation of the Slides to other non-GDS members.

94. [51]

    [51] Beyond this, the claimant has only relied on hearsay or opinion evidence for his claim that the Slides were circulated beyond GDS.

95. [52]

    [52] Ms Tan had assumed, based on an account from a friend that he heard negative things about the claimant, that this must have been due to the Petitioners spreading lies about the claimant (as contained in the Slides). She admitted that her friend did not say that it was the defendants who had spread the alleged rumours. She confirmed that she did not know if the Slides were shared with anyone.

96. [53]

    [53] Similarly, Ms Ip claimed that she heard rumours that the claimant was fired from GDS and assumed this meant that news of the EGM and/or the contents of the Slides had circulated beyond GDS. However, she conceded this was just her opinion, and she did not know if the Slides were circulated.

97. [54]

    [54] I therefore find that there was publication of the Slides, but this was limited to 41 GDS members and 2 non-members who were physically present at the EGM.

98. Which of the defendants is/are responsible for publication?

99. [55]

    [55] The claimant submitted that the defendants collectively partook in the EGM and/or published the Slides and/or caused them to be published.

100. [56]

     [56] The Remaining Defendants argued that the claimant had to prove that each of them individually communicated the Slides to a third party; alternatively, that there was concerted action by all of them for group liability to attach. The Remaining Defendants also raised a pleading objection, relying on V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and another [2015] 5 SLR 1422 (“V Nithia”), that the claimant was bound by his pleadings and cannot rely on any specific acts of publication by each of them which have not been pleaded.

101. [57]

     [57] The claimant did not have to prove that each of the defendants individually communicated the Slides.

102. [58]

     [58] Every person who takes part in the publication of defamatory matter is prima facie jointly and severally liable in respect of that publication: A Balakrishnan and others v Nirumalan K Pillay and others [1999] 3 SLR 22 (“Balakrishnan”) at [42]. A person who authorises or ratifies publication by another will be taken to have participated in it: Isabel Redrup Agency Pte Ltd v A L Dakshnamoorthy and Others [2016] SGHC 30 (“Isabel Redrup”) at [137].

103. [59]

     [59] In Balakrishnan, the editor of a newsletter was found liable even though he had not written the defamatory article because he was involved in the publication. He was informed of the articles to be written and was involved in the approval of the subject matter and the decision to publish what was presented before him. He also appointed the appropriate persons to vet the articles in their respective languages (at [43] – [45]).

104. [60]

     [60] In the more recent decision of Jasmin Nisban v Chan Boon Siang [2023] SGDC 158 (“Jasmin Nisban”), the court noted that anyone who participates directly or vicariously in the publication of a defamatory statement is jointly and severally liable for the statement regardless of the extent of his involvement. The person who first composed the defamatory matter (i.e. the originator) is liable, provided he intended to publish it or failed to take reasonable care to prevent its publication. Further, liability also extends to any person who participated in, secured, or authorised the publication. All persons who procure or participate in the publication of the libel are jointly and severally liable for the whole damage suffered by the claimant (at [200] to [201]). A participant in the publication is liable even if: (1) he was unaware of the presence of the defamatory words in the publication; (2) he had no knowledge or intention to defame the claimant; and/or (3) he had not read the defamatory statement: Jasmin Nisban at [202].

105. [61]

     [61] Hence, in Jasmin Nisban, the signatories to a defamatory publication were held jointly and severally liable notwithstanding that several of them had not read it before signing, as they were deemed to have authorised the publication: Jasmin Nisban at [215] and [217].

106. [62]

     [62] As for the Remaining Defendants’ pleading objection, one must not descend blindly into technicalities when assessing the adequacy of pleadings. Their ultimate purpose is to define the scope of the issues arising for the court’s determination and to ensure that the parties are not taken by surprise and deprived of the opportunity to adduce the relevant evidence: BOM v BOK and another appeal [2019] 1 SLR 349 at [40].

107. [64]

     [64] I accept that save for a general assertion that the defendants participated in the publication of the Slides, the extent to which each of the Remaining Defendants participated in the publication was not pleaded. However, the extent of each defendant’s participation only came to light after the Remaining Defendants filed their AEICs and was revealed in greater detail when they were cross-examined. There is also no prejudice to the Remaining Defendants as the extent of their participation would be matters within their own knowledge. Their solicitor also had the opportunity to re-examine them, and address this issue in closing and reply submissions.

108. [65]

     [65] I now consider whether the claimant has proven that Ms Isabel and each of the Remaining Defendants participated in the publication. The evidence, in summary, is as follows:

109. [66]

     [66] Among Ms Isabel and the Remaining Defendants, I find that only Mr Lamprecht did not participate in the publication of the Slides. His role was limited to presenting the slide on GDS’ constitution, which the claimant has not alleged to be defamatory. There is no evidence that he was aware of the contents of the rest of the Slides or given a chance to review them before they were presented at the EGM.

110. [67]

     [67] While the extent of involvement of Ms Isabel and the Remaining Defendants (other than Mr Lamprecht) differed, it cannot be denied that they had participated in the publication of the Slides. They were either involved in presenting the specific slides which the claimant alleged contained defamatory statements (Ms Isabel and Ms Ooi), preparing the Slides (Ms Ooi), giving input on specific slides (Ms Isabel, Ms Low, Mr Alban), or, at the very least, had the opportunity as Ex-Co members to review the Slides before they were presented at the EGM (Mr Truong and Ms Halverson).

111. Did the Slides refer to the claimant

112. [68]

     [68] The claimant pleaded that he could be identified from the Slides, as he was expressly identified by his full name “Tan Wee Jin”, the initials “WJ” and the title of “Team Coach”. Save for the slides headed “Allegations of bullying and harassment”, the Remaining Defendants admitted that the other Slides did identify the claimant.

113. [69]

     [69] Mr Abhinava agreed that the slides headed “Allegations of bullying and harassment” contained general advice to the members not to harass or bully each other and were not targeted at the claimant.

114. [70]

     [70] In any case, the claimant did not maintain that the Slides titled “Allegations of bullying and harassment” contained words defamatory of him .

115. [71]

     [71] I therefore find that the requirement of reference to the claimant has been satisfied.

116. Did the Slides have a defamatory meaning

117. [72]

     [72] The claimant has in his submissions, identified the specific words in the Slides which he asserted were defamatory . These are set out in Annex A.

118. [73]

     [73] The claimant pleaded that the Slides bore a total of 19 natural and ordinary meanings which were defamatory. The defendants deny that the Slides bore any of the pleaded defamatory meanings or any meanings defamatory of the claimant.

119. [74]

     [74] A statement is considered to be defamatory if: (1) it lowers the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; (2) causes the claimant to be shunned or avoided; or (3) exposes the claimant to hatred, contempt or ridicule: Golden Season at [36].

120. [75]

     [75] Whether a statement is defamatory is generally determined based on a construction of the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used. The following general principles apply (Golden Season at [37]):

121. (a) The natural and ordinary meaning of a word is that which is conveyed to an ordinary reasonable person;

122. (b) As the test is objective, the meaning which the defendant intended to convey is irrelevant;

123. (c) The ordinary reasonable reader is not avid for scandal but can read between the lines and draw inferences;

124. (d) Where there are a number of possible interpretations, some of which may be non-defamatory, such a reader will not seize on only the defamatory one;

125. (e) The ordinary reasonable reader is treated as having read the publication as a whole in determining its meaning, thus “the bane and the antidote must be taken together”; and

126. (f) The ordinary reasonable reader will take note of the circumstances and manner of the publication.

127. [76]

     [76] Given that this is an objective test based on a construction of the words used, the court is not bound to accept the opinions of the witnesses on whether the Slides were defamatory.

128. [77]

     [77] I find that the natural and ordinary meanings of the Slides were as follows:

129. (a) The claimant had overstepped his bounds in his role as Team Coach and undermined the authority of GDS’ Ex-Co, such as by unilaterally imposing rules on GDS’ property ;

130. (b) The claimant was cavalier towards the safety and health of GDS members ;

131. (c) The claimant caused past GDS members to get injured .

132. (d) The claimant participated in the decision to circumvent the Singapore Dragon Boat Association (“SDBA”)’s water ban which was unethical or unprincipled ;

133. (e) The claimant prioritised his own interest over that of GDS ;

134. (f) The claimant encouraged toxic behaviour within GDS, was overbearing, excessively controlling and self-centred, deliberately bullied and harassed members and committed psychological misconduct against GDS members ;

135. (g) The claimant practised favouritism within GDS ;

136. (h) The claimant failed to discharge his role and responsibility as a competitive dragon boat coach professionally ;

137. (i) The claimant’s conduct resulted in members losing interest in dragon-boating and caused GDS to lose members ; and

138. (j) The claimant was not competent as a coach.

139. [78]

     [78] I set out below, by way of example, the relevant statements which bear out the above imputations.

140. [79]

     [79] In respect of the imputation that the claimant had overstepped his bounds in his role as Team Coach and undermined the authority of GDS’ Ex-Co, such as by unilaterally imposing rules on GDS’ property:

141. [80]

     [80] In respect of the imputation that the claimant was cavalier towards the safety and health of GDS members:

142. [81]

     [81] In respect of the imputation that the claimant caused past GDS members to get injured:

143. [82]

     [82] As for the imputation that the claimant participated in the decision to circumvent the SDBA’s water ban which was unethical or unprincipled:

144. I did not accept the claimant’s pleaded meaning that the claimant was unethical or unprincipled, because per Isabel Redrup at [96], specific allegations do not automatically attract a wider meaning.

145. [83]

     [83] In respect of the imputation that the claimant prioritised his own interest over that of GDS:

146. [84]

     [84] In respect of the imputation that the claimant encouraged toxic behaviour within GDS, was overbearing, excessively controlling and self-centred, to the extent that he deliberately bullied and harassed members and committed psychological misconduct against GDS members:

147. [85]

     [85] In relation to the imputation that the claimant practised favouritism within GDS:

148. [86]

     [86] With respect to the imputation that the claimant failed to discharge his role and responsibility as a competitive dragon boat coach professionally:

149. [87]

     [87] That the claimant’s conduct resulted in members losing interest in dragon-boating and caused GDS to lose members, is borne out by the following statements:

150. [88]

     [88] Lastly, on the imputation that the claimant lacked competence as a coach:

151. [89]

     [89] The claimant has not made out the remaining pleaded defamatory meanings:

152. (a) The Slides did not go so far as to assert that the claimant was unqualified or negligent. There was no assertion that he lacked the necessary skills or expertise to coach dragon-boating or that his conduct fell short of a reasonable standard of care;

153. (b) While the Slides asserted that the claimant was unethical and unprincipled in trying to circumvent the water ban, they did not say that he was dishonest or lacked integrity ; and

154. (c) There was also no assertion that the claimant had been removed as Team Coach because of alleged issues with his conduct. All the Slides purported to put forward were the existence of the Petition and the reasons why the claimant should be removed as Team Coach. The ordinary reasonable reader who attended the EGM would already have been aware that the claimant had himself resigned prior to the EGM.

155. [90]

     [90] In my view, the natural and ordinary meanings which I have found would lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.

156. [91]

     [91] In the circumstances, the elements of the tort of defamation have been made out as against Ms Isabel, Ms Ooi, Mr Truong, Ms Low, Mr Alban and Ms Halverson, but not Mr Lamprecht.

157. Can Ms Isabel or any of the Remaining Defendants avail themselves of a defence?

158. [92]

     [92] For the reasons further below, I find that Ms Isabel and the Remaining Defendants (assuming the claimant had also established the elements of defamation against Mr Lamprecht) are entitled to rely on the defence of qualified privilege. That is sufficient for disposing of the defamation claim.

159. [93]

     [93] However, as some of the matters relied on by the claimant to argue malice overlap with whether the defamatory imputations were justified, I deal first with the defence of justification.

160. The defence of justification

161. [94]

     [94] The burden rests on a defendant to plead and show that the imputation is true or substantially true. A defendant must prove the meaning which the relevant statement is held to bear, and it is insufficient to prove the truth of a materially less serious meaning. The defendant however need not prove the literal truth of the words, but the imputation in the words, or the ‘sting’ of the charge: Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appeal [2012] 1 SLR 506 (“Bernard Chan”) at [43] - [44].

162. [95]

     [95] The defendants had pleaded various matters which they said justified the pleaded meanings, without specifying which of the pleaded meanings each of these matters would justify. In the Remaining Defendants’ closing submissions, they have referred to some of these matters in respect of several pleaded meanings. I therefore take reference to their closing submissions in determining if they have proven the meanings which I have found the Slides to carry.

163. [96]

     [96] In my view, only 5 of 10 defamatory meanings have been proven, being that:

164. (a) The claimant had overstepped his bounds in his role as Team Coach and undermined the authority of GDS’ Ex-Co, such as by unilaterally imposing rules on GDS’ property;

165. (b) The claimant was cavalier towards the safety and health of GDS members;

166. (c) The claimant had participated in the decision to circumvent the SDBA’s water ban which was unethical or unprincipled;

167. (d) The claimant prioritised his own interest over that of GDS; and

168. (e) The claimant failed to discharge his role and responsibility as a competitive dragon boat coach professionally.

169. The imputation that the claimant had overstepped his bounds in his role as Team Coach and undermined the authority of GDS’ Ex-Co, such as by unilaterally imposing rules on GDS’ property

170. [97]

     [97] The Remaining Defendants said that the claimant’s duties were restricted to preparing a training and recovery plan, conducting a technical analysis of training sessions, formulating race strategy, liaising with Tech-Co on the lineup for race participants and performing a video/GPS analysis of training sessions.

171. [98]

     [98] The claimant agreed that the Ex-Co determined the vision and trajectory of GDS and had members’ authority to run GDS and its training. He agreed that he could not override the Ex-Co or tell them how to run GDS. There was however a verbal agreement back in 2015 with then-Team Captain, Mr Thomas Gascou (“Mr Gascou”), that the Ex-Co would “listen” to him on all training-related matters. He assumed that this information would have been passed down to subsequent Captains. All training-related matters should be in accordance with his plan as discussed with the Team Captain at the start of the year.

172. [99]

     [99] I accept that the claimant had also reached such an understanding with the 2023 Ex-Co. The minutes of the Ex-Co meeting of 8 January 2023 recorded an agreement that “[the claimant] has always been in charge of race matters (e.g. line-ups, race programme, training programme, anything to do with fitness and training).”

173. [100]

     [100] Nonetheless, this did not give the claimant an unfettered licence or sole authority to decide on all training or race-related matters. Ms Tham agreed that the Ex-Co had ultimate authority. Ms Ip agreed that she would go back to the Ex-Co for their agreement after her discussions with the claimant on the races GDS would enter. Ms Tan agreed that GDS was run and managed by the Ex-Co, not the claimant, and the claimant was answerable to the Ex-Co .

174. [101]

     [101] Further, some of the specific events which the Remaining Defendants asserted as instances where the claimant overstepped his bounds were not solely training or race-related matters.

175. (1) The claimant’s control over GDS’ weights

176. [102]

     [102] According to the defendants, the claimant had shifted weight-training sessions from Kallang to the common area of the claimant’s residence at Queenstown. After the Covid-19 restrictions were lifted, the Ex-Co decided to move the weight-training sessions back to Kallang. The claimant however insisted on keeping the weights at Queenstown and only allowed selected members to bring the weights back to his residence after the sessions. After his resignation, he told an Ex-Co member to collect the weights which he had left at the common area, but when members tried to do so, the weights were nowhere to be found.

177. [103]

     [103] The claimant acknowledged that he did not agree to moving the weights back to Kallang. However, he explained that he had good reasons for this. Under GDS’ licence agreement with the SDBA, GDS was only permitted access to the nursery from 6.30 am to 7pm, whereas GDS’ weight-training sessions were conducted from 7.30 pm to 9.30pm. It also did not permit the storage of free weights. Any breach would entitle the SDBA to terminate GDS’ licence with 14 days’ notice. The Ex-Co did not offer an alternative venue for weight-training. He did not want his training plan to be jeopardised. He also denied compelling anyone to assist in packing up the weights, and any member who did, did so voluntarily.

178. [104]

     [104] The claimant also acknowledged that he had left the weights at the common area on 16 August 2023. However, he said no one from GDS had reached out to him to collect the weights following his resignation on 11 August 2023. It was only after he messaged Mr Sujathe on 16 August 2023 to retrieve the weights that the Ex-Co did so in the evening of 18 August 2023.

179. [105]

     [105] I accept that the claimant did not unilaterally move the weights to Queenstown. The Ex-Co had agreed to this, as evidenced from its announcement in the WhatsApp group chat titled “GDS Daily” on the move of the weights to the claimant’s residence. Mr Lamprecht also agreed that the change in location was necessitated by Covid-19 restrictions. The minutes of an Ex-Co meeting of 8 January 2023 also recorded that there will not be a move back to Kallang until the SDBA took the agreement “off the table”.

180. [106]

     [106] However, it was the Ex-Co’s prerogative to decide when to shift the weights back to Kallang. The claimant agreed that GDS was entitled to retrieve its weights anytime. Likewise, Ms Tham agreed that it was for the Ex-Co to decide when the weights were to be returned from Queenstown to Kallang, subject to the SDBA’s guidelines. While the claimant’s motivations for keeping the weights at Queenstown were well-intentioned, it was not his decision to make.

181. (2) The claimant’s cessation of training when Ms Isabel released the line-up for Singapore Regatta Waterfest (“SRW”) 2022 race without his prior approval

182. [107]

     [107] According to the defendants, Ms Isabel, who was then a Tech-Co member, had published a provisional participant line-up for the SRW 2022 race. The claimant was displeased with this decision. On or about 30 October 2022, the claimant ceased communications with the Ex-Co for 4 days and did not conduct training sessions for the SRW 2022 race that was scheduled for November 2022.

183. [108]

     [108] The claimant agreed this had happened. However, he explained that he was frustrated with Ms Isabel’s release of the provisional line-up which went against his instructions to the Tech-Co, which could give members a false hope and/or impression that they had secured a spot on the boat. He was also not obliged to respond to anyone immediately or to conduct extra training sessions as he was paid on a per-session basis.

184. [109]

     [109] The Remaining Defendants accepted that the claimant has a role in deciding the race line-up together with Tech-Co. Hence, I do not find that the claimant had acted beyond his role as Team Coach in insisting that only the finalised race line-up be released. However, by suddenly ceasing communication with the Ex-Co and stopping training, he had overstepped his bounds as Team Coach and undermined the authority of the Ex-Co.

185. (3) The claimant’s communications with Paulaner Brauhaus Singapore (“Paulaner”)

186. [110]

     [110] According to the defendants, the Ex-Co was responsible for fronting GDS’ communications with their main sponsor, Paulaner. However, there was an instance before GDS’ annual general meeting (“AGM”) in 2022 where, without obtaining the Ex-Co’s prior consent, the claimant contacted Paulaner directly to find out about their peak business hours.

187. [111]

     [111] The claimant accepted that he had contacted Paulaner. He also agreed that responsibility for GDS’ general meetings lay with the Ex-Co. However, he explained that he called Paulaner only to ask about their busiest times, because the Ex-Co wanted to shift the 2022 AGM from their usual timing later in the afternoon to 11 am to 2pm, and he was concerned doing so would disrupt Paulaner’s business and therefore affect Paulaner’s sponsorship of GDS. He disagreed that he had no right to communicate with Paulaner as he had previously been put in direct correspondence with Paulaner’s general manager. In any event, he had called merely as a customer and did not mention GDS or the AGM.

188. [112]

     [112] I do not find that the claimant had overstepped his boundaries as coach or undermined the Ex-Co’s authority simply by calling Paulaner in the capacity of a customer.

189. (4) The claimant’s control over GDS’ kayaks

190. [113]

     [113] The defendants asserted that the claimant unilaterally made decisions regarding GDS’ kayaks. First, he had sent a message to the WhatsApp chatgroup titled “GDS Kayak Certified” on or about 5 February 2023 stating that all kayaks were no longer available for use , without the Ex-Co and Tech-Co’s prior knowledge or consent. Without first obtaining the Ex-Co’s authorisation, he then proceeded to contact a vessel inspector who was his friend to inspect the kayaks, which resulted in the kayaks being declared unsafe for use. The claimant had signed off on all the inspection forms even though it went beyond his duty and he was not authorised by the Ex-Co. The inspection should not have failed because a subsequent inspection (after minor adjustments were made) certified the kayaks fit for use.

191. [114]

     [114] The claimant said that he had the authority to decide all matters relating to kayaks. He was responsible for introducing kayaking to complement GDS’ trainings, and had agreed with Mr Jamues Ng (a previous Team Captain of GDS) (“Mr Ng”) that they would set ground rules on the kayaks’ use due to safety concerns and GDS members’ lack of experience with kayak maintenance. He was not informed by the subsequent Ex-Cos that this position would change. He maintained that the kayaks were badly damaged at the start of 2023, so he decided to disallow their use due to safety concerns. He denied preventing members from fixing the kayaks, and instead attributed it to lack of manpower and bad weather.

192. [115]

     [115] I accept that there was an arrangement whereby the claimant would have a say over the use of kayaks. However, this did not extend to the claimant having the sole authority to decide all matters relating to the kayaks. In Mr Ng’s email sent in 2020, he merely stated that members can only use the kayaks after the claimant assessed members’ proficiency. Similarly, the description of the WhatsApp chatgroup titled “GDS Kayak Certified” stated that the claimant must assess a member’s ability to use kayaks, and in all other cases, kayaks must be taken out under the claimant’s supervision.

193. [116]

     [116] Ms Ip confirmed that Mr Ng had informed her of these ground rules which he had set with the claimant. Likewise, Ms Tham’s evidence was that the Ex-Co did not retract the authority that had been given to the claimant regarding the use of kayaks. However, Ms Tham agreed that it was ultimately for the Ex-Co to decide whether to accept the claimant’s recommendations on whether the kayaks can be used and by whom.

194. [117]

     [117] Nevertheless, the claimant was entitled to take the kayaks out of use in February 2023. I accept that the kayaks were in a poor condition at the start of 2023. There had been discussions in the Tech-Co’s WhatsApp chatgroup on 4 February 2023 about the poor condition of some of the kayaks and taking some of them out of use. The claimant had informed the Tech-Co that he would send a message later that the kayaks were “in a ridiculously bad shape” and that no one would be allowed to use the kayaks until they have all been maintained. It was against this background that he then sent his message in the WhatsApp chatgroup titled “GDS Kayak Certified” on or about 5 February 2023 stating that all kayaks were no longer available for use.

195. [118]

     [118] That the kayaks were in bad shape was also evidenced from the failed inspection on 21 May 2023. While Ms Meissner had alleged that the claimant went around pointing out issues with the kayaks to the inspector , she was unable to conclude that the inspection failed for this reason. Further, some of the kayaks still failed a subsequent inspection conducted on 20 August 2023, after the claimant had resigned from GDS. As of GDS’ AGM on 12 November 2023, some of the kayaks remained under repair.

196. [119]

     [119] The claimant did not prevent members from fixing the kayaks. Ms Meissner had asserted that the claimant did not arrange the necessary tools for the maintenance session on 4 February 2023. However, the claimant had given instructions in the Tech-Co’s WhatsApp chatgroup on what equipment was required. There are also WhatsApp messages in evidence showing that plans were made for further kayak maintenance sessions and some sessions had to be postponed due to rain.

197. [120]

     [120] Neither did the claimant overstep his authority by arranging for the kayaks’ inspection or putting himself as the contact person on the kayak inspection forms.

198. [121]

     [121] The Ex-Co was also aware that there would be an inspection carried out in May 2023. As for the kayak inspection forms, while Mr Saunak was listed as the contact person for the inspection in 2022 (when he was Team Captain) , the inspection forms of August 2023 were signed off by Mr Ng who did not occupy any position in the Ex-Co or Tech-Co in 2023. Mr Koch said that was because Mr Ng had volunteered and no one objected. There was therefore no rule that only the Team Captain could be the contact person for any kayak inspection.

199. (5) The claimant’s alleged displeasure shown towards social races

200. [122]

     [122] The defendants pleaded that the claimant discouraged GDS’ members from participating in social races and refused to train members for them.

201. (a) The claimant expressed his displeasure with GDS’ participation in events organised by the International Dragon Boat Committee (“IDBC”), such as the Mardi Gras race . He demanded that the Ex-Co investigate why certain members were allowed to participate in the Mardi Gras 2023 race and who had encouraged them to do so ;

202. (b) The claimant was not supportive of members’ participation in the Australian Chamber of Commerce (“Austcham”) 5 km race scheduled in October 2022. Members therefore had to train on their own outside of coached sessions. This was even though the Ex-Co and Tech-Co had the final say on such matters ;

203. (c) The claimant refused to train members who wanted to participate in the Pesta Sukan 200 m race in 2022. He was of the view that these members were not worth his time training. He refused to reschedule the training sessions so that other members could support participating members ;

204. (d) The claimant discouraged members from participating in the Austcham 5 km race on 14 October 2023, which the Ex-Co had scheduled for members’ participation at the beginning of the year ;

205. (e) He expressed his displeasure over GDS’ participation in the Siargao International Race in July 2023 ;

206. (f) He was unhappy when he saw a GDS member wearing GDS’ vest during an IDBC event on 28 July 2023 even though that member had the captain’s prior consent.

207. [123]

     [123] The Remaining Defendants have in their closing submissions, only referred to the claimant’s alleged discouragement of members’ participation in IDBC events, and his lack of support for members’ participation in the Austcham 5 km race and the Pesta Sukan 200 m race (i.e. (a) to (d) above). However, they did not specify which defamatory imputation(s) these alleged incidents above were intended to justify.

208. [124]

     [124] Based on how they have been pleaded, these matters, if true, could, in my view, go towards justifying the imputation that the claimant overstepped his bounds as coach and undermined the Ex-Co’s authority.

209. [125]

     [125] According to the claimant, it was the practice since 2015 to plan the training programme at the start of the year with 2 target races in mind, being the Singapore Dragonboat Festival (“SDBF”) and the Singapore River Water Festival. GDS would only participate in non-target races if there were sufficient interest and availability, and if it did not take time away from training for the target races . The target races for both 2022 and 2023 had been agreed upon with the Ex-Co.

210. [126]

     [126] I accept that the claimant had his reasons for wanting to focus on training GDS members for the target races. However, he did not have an unfettered licence or sole authority to decide on which races to enter and which to train for.

211. (6) Conclusion

212. [127]

     [127] In summary therefore, I find that the claimant had overstepped his bounds as Team Coach and undermined the Ex-Co’s authority insofar as he had disregarded the Ex-Co’s directions to move the weights back to Kallang, when he ceased communication with the Ex-Co and stopped training in response to Ms Isabel’s release of the provisional race line-up for the SRW 2022 race, and when he refused to train GDS members for non-target races.

213. The imputation that the claimant was cavalier towards the safety and health of GDS members

214. (1) Breach of the SDBA’s steering rules

215. [128]

     [128] The defendants pleaded that the claimant knowingly broke the SDBA’s steering rules which led to the SDBA imposing a 4-week water ban on GDS. He had allowed 23 persons on a boat meant for 22, the 23rd person being Ms Ip/Mr Truong’s daughter.

216. [129]

     [129] The claimant accepted that this incident happened. However, he sought to explain how this came about. Ms Ip was the one who wanted to bring her daughter on board. He had allowed it because he did not see it as a risk – the boat was able to handle the weight of 22 adult males and it was carrying a mixture of both males and females at that time. He also denied being solely responsible for the ban. Other than Ms Ip, there were other certified steers on the boat (being Ms Isabel, Ms Low, Mr Alban, Ms Meissner and another member, one Ruo Ting) who did not object to it. Mr Truong, who was also on the boat, did not prevent this from happening.

217. [130]

     [130] Additionally, the claimant relied on the SDBA’s letter stating that the certified coach and the certified steers named in the report should shoulder the responsibility of ensuring that the SDBA’s safety rules are adhered to. The claimant also referred to how the Ex-Co, in particular, Ms Low, were thereafter focused on defending the incident.

218. [131]

     [131] Ms Low’s evidence was that she was not aware that Ms Ip’s child had been on the boat. While she had in her earlier messages with the Ex-Co seemed to disagree with the SDBA’s response, she said she later realised it was more serious than she initially thought. Mr Truong’s evidence was that he too, did not know that his child was on the boat. He would not have allowed it if he had known, as there were already 22 persons on the boat. Ms Ip agreed that exceeding the maximum head count may compromise on safety.

219. [132]

     [132] Regardless of whether there were other persons who should also share responsibility for the decision to allow Ms Ip’s daughter on the boat, the claimant was one of them. He had, by allowing Ms Ip’s daughter on the boat, displayed a cavalier attitude towards members’ safety.

220. [133]

     [133] In the SDBA’s email dated 11 June 2023 , it stated that there should not be any assumption that the 22 person-configuration takes reference to the load in the boat or the number of male or female adults. It also described this incident as “one of the more severe violations of safety rules by a team SDBA has ever encountered.” The claimant, as well as the 2 certified steers that were identified to the SDBA, were given a conditional warning and not allowed to steer for other teams during the suspension period.

221. [134]

     [134] Despite the ban, the claimant participated in the decision to circumvent the ban by paddling under the Paulaner Dragons in July 2023. The claimant accepted that he did so, but explained that he was merely following the Ex-Co’s instructions.

222. (2) Not meeting minimum crew advisory

223. [135]

     [135] The defendants pleaded that sometime on or about 29 or 30 October 2022, Ms Meissner, who was on a boat with the claimant, informed the claimant that they did not meet the minimum safety requirements to enter the Marina Channel. There were 5 crew members on a 12-seater boat but the minimum requirement was for 7 crew members. This requirement was imposed by the SDBA in its DB-Safe Plan dated 27 April 2022. The claimant dismissed Ms Meissner’s safety concern.

224. [136]

     [136] The claimant accepted that Ms Meissner had raised this issue. However, he denied simply dismissing her concerns. He said he had asked 2 other members on the boat, Mr Saunak and one Suri, who were then Tech-Co members, about the rule. They both said that they were not aware of the rule, and he took their word for it. In any case, the safety requirement was only an advisory. There were no strong winds or waves that day and many other teams out in the water had a similar configuration.

225. [137]

     [137] Ms Meissner agreed that the minimum crew stated in the SDBA’s DB-Safe Plan was an advisory. She did not recall there having been a thunderstorm or any warnings issued. She agreed that the claimant had asked Suri about the rule, but Suri was not a certified steer.

226. [138]

     [138] Even though the minimum crew stipulation was only an advisory, this was in place for safety reasons. As stated in the DB-Safe Plan, the boat may encounter difficulties negotiating strong winds, swift currents and high waves, and in the event of a capsize, it would be more difficult for the crew to maintain the boat. The claimant ought to have familiarised himself with the SDBA’s safety rules. Even if he was not aware of this rule, given that this had been highlighted by Ms Meissner, he should not have proceeded further in the interest of safety.

227. (3) Organised a fitness training session in the afternoon

228. [139]

     [139] According to the defendants, the claimant had on 19 May 2023, informed the Tech-Co of his plans to organise a fitness training session commencing with a 2.4 km run at 1pm. The Tech-Co informed the claimant that they were concerned that his suggested training plan could cause heat-related medical issues. The claimant did not relent nor address these concerns.

229. [140]

     [140] The claimant said he had informed the Tech-Co of the intended make-up fitness lesson since 21 April 2023. No issues were raised until the day before the test, when Mr Alban shared his concerns about the test being held at 1 pm. The claimant said that there was insufficient time to make alternative plans.

230. [141]

     [141] I do not find this incident sufficient to prove that the claimant had a cavalier attitude towards health and safety. Mr Alban agreed it was a one-off incident as fitness tests were usually conducted at night, and there were no incidents that day.

231. (4) Refusal to take Covid-19 vaccination

232. [142]

     [142] In closing submissions, the Remaining Defendants additionally relied on Mr Lamprecht’s evidence on the stand that the claimant did not get his Covid-19 vaccination. However, this alone did not prove that the claimant had a cavalier attitude towards members’ safety since according to Mr Lamprecht, GDS hired external steers in the claimant’s place. In other words, it was not a situation where the claimant disregarded prevailing Covid-19 regulations and insisted on being on the boat despite being unvaccinated.

233. (5) Conclusion

234. [143]

     [143] I therefore find that Ms Isabel and the Remaining Defendants have proven that the claimant was cavalier towards the safety and health of GDS members, based on the claimant’s decision to allow Ms Ip’s daughter on the boat in breach of the SDBA’s rules, and in proceeding to row in the Marina Channel despite not meeting the SDBA’s minimum crew advisory.

235. The imputation that the claimant caused past GDS members to get injured

236. [144]

     [144] Mr Lamprecht asserted that many injuries occurred while the claimant was coaching. There were multiple instances of slipped discs and shoulder injuries. One specific individual identified was Maxime, the current Sports Director, who allegedly sustained an injury from having to do several 1 km sets on the boat without guidance. Mr Lamprecht also identified himself, Mr Koch and one Bianca as having sustained injuries.

237. [145]

     [145] However, there is no evidence proving that it was the claimant’s training that resulted in these injuries.

238. [146]

     [146] Mr Lamprecht clarified on the stand that he was not saying that it was the claimant that caused the injuries on purpose, but the claimant could have provided more guidance or shown more compassion during training to prevent injuries. Yet, he did not have these individuals’ medical reports , and assumed that Mr Koch’s injuries were caused by the claimant’s training simply because he suffered a slipped disc after the training session. He also assumed that his shoulder injury was because of wrong technique.

239. [147]

     [147] I am therefore unable to find that the claimant had caused injuries to past GDS members.

240. The imputation that the claimant had participated in the decision to circumvent the SDBA’s water ban which was unethical or unprincipled

241. [148]

     [148] The Remaining Defendants relied on the same assertions made in support of their claim that the claimant displayed a cavalier attitude towards the safety and health of GDS members and caused members to be injured (see [128] – [147] above).

242. [149]

     [149] However, given the specific defamatory meaning I have found, Ms Isabel and the Remaining Defendants have to prove that the claimant participated in the said decision which was unethical or unprincipled, and not that he was generally unethical or unprincipled.

243. [150]

     [150] In any case, while the claimant did breach the SDBA’s rules and minimum crew advisory, these do not cross the threshold of being unethical or unprincipled. Even more so, merely organising a fitness session in the afternoon or not getting his Covid-19 vaccination which thus prevented him from joining the team on the boat, did not amount to unethical or unprincipled conduct. There is also no evidence that the claimant caused past members to suffer injuries.

244. [151]

     [151] On the other hand, the claimant’s knowing participation in the decision to circumvent the SDBA’s water ban when he was also personally subject to the ban was unethical and unprincipled. This is regardless of whether the idea had originated from him.

245. The imputation that the claimant prioritised his own interest over that of GDS

246. [152]

     [152] The Remaining Defendants relied on the same assertions made in support of their claim that the claimant overstepped his role as Team Coach and undermined the Ex-Co (see [97] – [127] above).

247. [153]

     [153] They have not specifically referred to the claimant’s alleged discouragement of members’ participation in IDBC events, and his lack of support for members’ participation in the Austcham 5 km race and the Pesta Sukan 200 m race in support of this defamatory imputation. However, based on how these matters have been pleaded, these, if true, could, in my view, also go towards justifying the imputation that the claimant prioritised his own interest over GDS’. I therefore also consider these in determining if this defamatory imputation has been proven.

248. [154]

     [154] In respect of the claimant’s insistence that weight-training remained at Queenstown, I accept that he wanted to ensure that GDS members could weight-train without contravening the licence agreement with the SDBA. He had also contacted Paulaner because he did not want GDS’ scheduling of the AGM to affect its sponsorship with Paulaner. He had genuine concerns over the safety of the kayaks. He also believed that focusing on target races was to GDS’ benefit. These were therefore not instances whereby he had preferred his own interests over GDS.

249. [155]

     [155] However, while I accept that the claimant was motivated by a desire to act in GDS’ interest when he instructed that only the finalised line-up be released, he had prioritised his own interest when he chose to vent his frustration in response to Ms Isabel’s disregard of his instruction by ceasing communications with the Ex-Co and stopping training for the SRW 2022 race.

250. The imputation that the claimant encouraged toxic behaviour within GDS, was overbearing, excessively controlling and self-centred, deliberately bullied and harassed members, and committed psychological misconduct against GDS members

251. (1) The claimant’s control over GDS’ weights, his cessation of training for SRW 2022 race, his communications with Paulaner, and his control over GDS’ kayaks

252. [156]

     [156] The Remaining Defendants relied on these assertions made in support of their claim that the claimant overstepped his role as Team Coach and undermined the Ex-Co to support the imputation that the claimant was overbearing (see [97] – [127] above).

253. [157]

     [157] In particular, the claimant had acted in an overbearing manner when he decided to suddenly cease communications with the Ex-Co and stop training in response to Ms Isabel’s release of the provisional race line-up for the SRW 2022 race.

254. (2) The 2018 IDBC race

255. [158]

     [158] The Remaining Defendants asserted that the claimant was prone to shouting, sarcasm and unpredictable emotional volatility.

256. [159]

     [159] One such incident was during the 2018 IDBC 10 km race. Mr Lamprecht said that the claimant suddenly instructed the team to stop paddling during the race, told them that they were not “good enough to race” and ordered them to perform training drills mid-race, which was humiliating and demoralising for the GDS members.

257. [160]

     [160] Mr Lamprecht’s evidence on this was not challenged by the claimant.

258. (3) The post-SDBF race scolding (the “Mother’s Day Incident”)

259. [161]

     [161] Another incident took place on Mother’s Day 2023, when before a scheduled training could commence, the claimant confronted and scolded the Ex-Co for over an hour over concerns they had shared with Ms Ip about the claimant’s coaching methods, while the other members were left waiting. Ms Ip broke down.

260. [162]

     [162] The claimant has not disputed this incident. Instead, he claimed that the Ex-Co had, via their messages exchanged after the Mother’s Day Incident, acknowledged that there was some value in the claimant’s points, and that Ms Ip’s frustration was directed at both the Ex-Co and the claimant.

261. [163]

     [163] Whether or not there was ‘value’ in what the claimant said is separate from whether the claimant had subjected the Ex-Co to treatment that was toxic, overbearing or tantamount to bullying.

262. (4) The claimant’s resignation message

263. [164]

     [164] The defendants pleaded that the claimant posted discouraging messages, aimed at belittling members and making sanctimonious statements. The claimant said that he was very supportive of the 2022-2023 Ex-Co and provided them with advice and suggestions.

264. [165]

     [165] In closing submissions, the Remaining Defendants have only referred specifically to the claimant’s resignation message, which they said evidenced the claimant’s pattern of conduct, as he had used inflammatory language and “bad-mouthed” several Ex-Co members.

265. [166]

     [166] The claimant had in his resignation message , accused the Petitioners of being “keyboard warriors” who “think they know better”. He had also made accusations against the Women’s Captain and Sports Director (see [13] above).

266. (5) Dismissive of social paddlers

267. [167]

     [167] The defendants said that the claimant deemed some members social paddlers, being those who were not committed to a training plan or were not keen on competitive racing. He discouraged new members from mixing with social paddlers. The claimant made it clear that only members who abided by his training sessions were eligible to be considered for competitive races.

268. [168]

     [168] The claimant denied having any issues with social paddlers. He claimed that he wanted to develop all paddlers. However, he explained that his primary focus had to be on members who were committed to his training programme, so that he could develop GDS into a high-performance competitive dragon-boating team who could win medals in target races. The claimant referred to the minutes of an Ex-Co meeting where it was recorded that the claimant did not care if one was a competitive or social paddler, so long as they were looking to improve paddling skills.

269. [169]

     [169] I accept that the claimant was dismissive of social paddlers. By way of illustration, the claimant had in WhatsApp messages stated that “if people are in the team, they either follow where the team direction is or be social paddlers and just go and do their social thing or buzz off…” and “I did not stay to coach a social team i [sic] am making it very damn clear”.

270. [170]

     [170] The Remaining Defendants also gave evidence on specific instances. Mr Lamprecht said the claimant did not consider him a serious paddler and thus did not give him proper coaching. The claimant even told him off for discussing paddling technique with a new member despite him having several years of experience.

271. [171]

     [171] Ms Halverson’s evidence was that the claimant had regularly called her husband, Klaus, a social paddler. Even though a specific incident of alleged abuse (when the claimant allegedly told Klaus not to touch the equipment in a demeaning tone when he was unable to lift a certain weight) was hearsay evidence as Klaus himself did not give evidence, the claimant had regularly made comments about Klaus being a social paddler in her presence.

272. (6) Not allowing Ms Low to steer the Pesta Sukan race

273. [172]

     [172] The claimant had allegedly remarked to members that the IDBC Barbarians Women’s crew was “one nonsense”. This had been captained by Ms Low. He refused to allow Ms Low to steer the boat for the Pesta Sukan race after having seen her on the Barbarian Women’s 2 km boat.

274. [173]

     [173] The claimant said he did not remember labelling the IDBC Barbarian Women’s boat as “one nonsense”. However, he agreed that he took Ms Low off the Pesta Sukan race. He said this was justified because she trained with another team instead of supporting GDS’ boat maintenance efforts (during the 4-week water ban), and instead of training with other GDS members despite signing up for the Pesta Sukan race.

275. [174]

     [174] Regardless, the claimant had responded to Ms Low by sanctioning her, rather than seeking a dialogue.

276. (7) The claimant’s complaint against Ms Ooi arising out of a post-race dinner in 2022

277. [175]

     [175] The defendants pleaded that the claimant repeatedly demanded that the Ex-Co convince members he disliked to resign as members. In closing submissions, the Remaining Defendants have only referred specifically to Ms Ooi as one such member. Ms Ooi had allegedly made a comment against the claimant during a dinner after the Century Race, and he then asked that she be dismissed immediately without a formal investigation. The Ex-Co investigated and found that his allegations were unfounded.

278. [176]

     [176] The claimant agreed that he asked for Ms Ooi to be taken off the team. However, he justified this on the basis that Ms Ooi had made inappropriate personal comments regarding another member, and had promoted outrigger paddling with Austcham Paddle Club, another dragon-boating club. He felt that this was inappropriate as outrigger paddling took the focus away from dragon boating, and Ms Ooi who was then an Ex-Co member should not be promoting other clubs.

279. [177]

     [177] Again, whether or not the claimant’s complaints were justified, he responded to Ms Ooi’s alleged conduct by asking that she be sanctioned, rather than seeking a dialogue.

280. (8) Conclusion

281. [178]

     [178] Having regard to the totality of the incidents relied on by the defendants, I accept that there were disagreements between the claimant and some GDS members who did not appreciate the claimant’s communication style and coaching methods, and this had led to several unpleasant confrontations. While the claimant’s style was unprofessional, his conduct did not reach a level of encouraging toxic behaviour or amount to bullying, harassment or psychological misconduct.

282. The imputation that the claimant practised favouritism within GDS

283. [179]

     [179] The defendants said that sometime in 2023, the claimant approached selected members for extra training with the OCBC Dragon Boat Team, which he had also been coaching. He did not inform or obtain Tech-Co’s prior consent. The purpose and reasoning behind his selection process were not transparent. When a member reported this to the Ex-Co, he demanded on 30 March 2023 that the Tech-Co take action against this member.

284. [180]

     [180] The claimant admitted giving some GDS members extra weight-training lessons under OCBC. However, he denied that this was done in secret. The Tech-Co was aware as they, together with the rest of the Ex-Co and several GDS members, were present when he made this offer. Ms Meissner was one of them. He explained that he made the offer so that these members could get stronger. He had assessed them based on whether they had a basic level of fitness and could take on more. He did not see the need to inform the Ex-Co or get their permission beforehand as this was in GDS’ interests. The claimant also denied having demanded that the Ex-Co investigate Ms Meissner but merely mentioned it to them.

285. [181]

     [181] That there were Tech-Co and Ex-Co members present when the claimant offered extra training to several members was corroborated by Ms Ip. The members who were invited eventually declined to take up the offer.

286. [182]

     [182] I do not see the claimant’s offer of additional training to members who he assessed were capable of additional training, as a display of favouritism.

287. The imputation that the claimant failed to discharge his role and responsibility as a competitive dragon boat coach professionally

288. [183]

     [183] The Remaining Defendants have not, in their closing submissions, elaborated why this specific defamatory imputation was justified.

289. [184]

     [184] Nevertheless, the matters which the Remaining Defendants relied on to justify the defamatory imputation that the claimant’s conduct was toxic and amounted to bullying, harassment or psychological misconduct, show that the claimant did not discharge his role as coach professionally (see [156] – [178] above).

290. [185]

     [185] I note that the claimant had said that his manner of coaching is necessary so that GDS can be competitive and win medals, and it had been proven to be successful. Nonetheless, the ends do not justify the means. Further, his conduct, to the extent I have found amounted to an overstepping of his role as Team Coach, and his breach of the SDBA’s rules, also support this imputation.

291. The imputation that the claimant’s conduct resulted in members losing interest in dragon-boating and caused GDS to lose members

292. [186]

     [186] The Remaining Defendants relied on Ms Ooi’s testimony that the claimant’s conduct made it difficult to find volunteers to sit on the Ex-Co and Mr Lamprecht’s assertion that members were unhappy because of the claimant’s disdain towards social paddlers.

293. [187]

     [187] Ms Ooi’s and Mr Lamprecht’s assertions do not prove that GDS lost members because of the claimant.

294. The imputation that the claimant lacked competence as a coach

295. [188]

     [188] The Remaining Defendants relied on the same assertions made in support of their claim that the claimant’s conduct resulted in GDS losing members.

296. [189]

     [189] These matters do not show that the claimant lacked competence as a coach.

297. The Remaining Defendants’ reliance on s 8 of the Defamation Act 1957

298. [190]

     [190] The Remaining Defendants argued, relying on s 8 of the Defamation Act 1957, that their defence of justification succeeds even if not every charge was proven. S 8 states:

299. [191]

     [191] In Lee Hsien Loong v Xu Yuan Chen and another suit [2022] 3 SLR 924, the court found that the defendant was not entitled to rely on s 8 as he failed to justify any of the claimed meanings and in any event, s 8 was not applicable since the plaintiff’s reputation was found to have been materially injured by the falsehoods (at [64]).

300. [192]

     [192] The Remaining Defendants have only succeeded in justifying 5 of 10 defamatory meanings. The remaining 5 defamatory imputations which were not proven contain some particularly serious allegations. Hence, Ms Isabel and the Remaining Defendants are not entitled to rely on s 8 of the Defamation Act.

301. The defence of qualified privilege

302. [193]

     [193] Ms Isabel and the Remaining Defendants argued that the Slides were displayed on an occasion of qualified privilege.

303. [194]

     [194] In deciding whether a defamatory statement was made on an occasion of qualified privilege, the ‘ultimate question’ is whether the statements were fairly warranted by the occasion. The court must consider all the circumstances and ask whether this publisher had a duty to publish or an interest in publishing this defamatory communication to this recipient and whether the recipient had a corresponding interest or duty to receive the defamatory communication: Bernard Chan at [87].

304. Was there an interest or duty to make and receive the publication?

305. [195]

     [195] I accept that Ms Isabel and the Remaining Defendants had a duty or interest in convening the EGM and presenting the Slides at the EGM.

306. [196]

     [196] It is not the Remaining Defendants’ case that the EGM was called because the Petition had obtained signatures from at least 25% of the members. It was Ms Low’s and Mr Alban’s evidence that the Petition was not eventually submitted.

307. [197]

     [197] The Ex-Co was entitled under GDS’ constitution to convene the EGM, even without the Petition:

308. (a) Under GDS’ constitution , the administration of GDS shall be entrusted to a Committee (clause 9.1), whose duty is to organise and supervise the daily activities of GDS (clause 9.6);

The judgment continues past this page. Read the rest at eLitigation.