I really desperately asking for help I was being bullied by a lady lawyer, Name Diana Foo from Tan See Swan & Co.

She force me to do illegal deals with her, I have recorded how I was being bullied by her.

I am very Helpless.

Woo mui chan

14. On a few occasions, the dates of which I cannot recall precisely now, the Lawyer handed me a stack of Singapore currency notes, saying that she would lend me money.

15. As I was in need, and due to what I felt was the Lawyer’s kindness, I reciprocated by accepting the money but agreed with her that it was only a loan, though not a “friendly” loan. The Lawyer, despite my request to the contrary, insisted that the details of the loans should not be written or captured in any written agreement.

…

18. The Lawyer also began to ask me about assisting her in a deal in Vietnam, to move “money”; the details of which I found too complicated to understand and which I cannot describe sufficiently here, and thus declined.

…

20. All the time that I have known the Lawyer, she seemed to talk to me like a close confidant and like someone who had a sexual relationship with her; for example, she would refer to me as “darling” or “dear” in front of other people that we met, and she would try to establish physical contact.

21. I rebuffed these advances as politely as I could, particularly, in view that she had been so kind to me before in lending me money.

…

30. The issues which I raise for the Council are as follows:-

(i) Is it permissible for the Lawyer to lend money to a client?

(ii) Is it permissible for the Lawyer to make sexual advances towards the client?

(iii) I am surprised that a Lawyer should be allowed to use vulgarities in the course of legal work …

… even if a plaintiff has not in any objective sense suffered damage (eg, he has retained his office, job, family and friends), this does not therefore mean that no damages should be awarded, as the compensatory objectives of damages for defamation includes vindicating the injured reputation of the plaintiff and consoling him for the wrong done to him. Hence, the sum awarded must be at least the minimum necessary to signal to the public the vindication of the plaintiff’s reputation …

[emphasis in original]

The supposed objection was, that evidence had been received of the diminished success of the paper, without any allegation of special damage, which, indeed, could hardly have been made consistently, for the action was brought the day after the publication of the libel. I am of opinion that the evidence that was received was properly received. In a case of this description the plaintiff has a right to claim general damages for the consequence of the libel, and if a period has elapsed between the commencement of the action and the trial of the cause, which has disclosed circumstances calculated to throw light upon the question of general damage, the plaintiff in my opinion has a right to give it in evidence, in order that the jury may be able more correctly and satisfactorily to judge; and we must not confound here the question of special damage and general damage. Suppose, to put a case, a person who carries on business entirely on ready money, by supplying the public with articles, as, to give an instance, the case of a confectioner or pastrycook, whose business chiefly consists, in a great thoroughfare, in supplying for ready money the wants of those who pass by in the street, a libel is published of him, or some imputation is cast upon him, as by somebody standing at the door with a placard proclaiming something either prejudicial in respect of his business, or prejudicial to him in a grave and dangerous matter concerned with his personal character. He brings an action – and why should he not bring it instantly – the very day after. What is the consequence that is likely to result from such an information the jury may prospectively judge, and unquestionably they may give damages with reference to what a man carrying on a business of that description is likely to suffer; and it is impossible in a case of that sort to allege special damage. A man does not know who are his customers, but he finds that his business has fallen off very much; and any person might anticipate, if a libel of that sort got into circulation, that a man’s personal acceptation in society, or his character with reference either to his general moral station, or with reference to the conduct of his business – every one might anticipate that his business would fall off, and his character suffer, and he would sustain general damage; but if the interval between the libel and the trial was such as to afford an opportunity of giving to the jury some evidence of what the loss has been, and what the general damage has been, why should not that be received in evidence? I think it is very properly received; but especially with this caution, that the jury must judge for themselves, and must not take it for granted that the whole of it was attributable to this libel; I speak of it with reference to there being a separate publication of the same libel by other persons, or by the same persons in a different mode. It seems to me that the case may be compared to a severe bodily injury by a railway accident, or by any of those mischances of life for which somebody else is responsible, and the man brings his action instantly. It is not special damages. He is so disabled that he is unable to carry on his business, or he is impaired in the general efficiency he would have in society; that is not special damage – it is general damage resulting from the kind of injury he has sustained. It would be special damage if he had lost a particular situation of great benefit to him, and in respect of which he claimed – that would be special damage; but the general efficiency of a man who has lost a limb, or whose understanding is impaired, or who is in any way less capable of conducting the affairs of life – that is general damage, not special damage. The jury, no doubt, might receive evidence prospectively, as we constantly hear in actions against railway companies, “Are you of opinion that he will ever get well?” A medical man says, “No, he may get a little better; but he will ever be subject to occasional affections of the head, or having his limbs less capable of motion; or the joint may never recover its capacity to move again,” and so on. And then the jury are to judge of that, what is the damage. That is not special damage; that is general damage. …

[emphasis added]

The argument before us depends entirely on what is relevant in these pleadings. Undoubtedly the plaintiff must disclose all documents which relate to the matters in question. If she had charged special damage, as, for instance, if she had charged loss of actual earnings, if she had charged loss of actual contracts, or indeed an actual decline in her income by reason of loss of business, then it seems to me that those would be allegations of which particulars would have had to be given; … It is always open to a plaintiff in such an action as this … to allege if he wishes, special damage, in which case he must particularise it and he must give discovery. But, as I read these pleadings, there is no allegation of special damage at all. There is no allegation of any specific loss of earnings or of income or indeed of any general loss of business such as to call for particulars or discovery. In those circumstances it seems to me that the judge below was right in not ordering the plaintiff to produce the various accounts, receipts and other documents relating to the income she was receiving before this publication in July, 1960. …

98 … The tort of defamation is not one which protects all kinds of interests and so not all kinds of losses are recoverable. By their nature, certain kinds of losses are, as a matter of policy, simply too remote to be recovered in an action for defamation. The tort of defamation primarily protects a person’s reputation … and so grants relief for damage to a plaintiff’s reputation, the injury to his feelings and also provides a vindicatory effect. Where therefore the loss resulting from a publication of the words complained of is not referable to such protected interests, such loss is not claimable even if the publication was factually causative of it; it therefore does not include all consequential pecuniary loss.

99 In the present case, the Judge had found, and we agree, that given the Publications and Republications held the meanings they were found to hold, they would tend to lower the Appellant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or impute a lack of integrity. It was not this lowering of the Appellant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or the imputation of a lack of integrity, ie, the damage to his reputation, which caused the Appellant not to be able to sell his vendor shares in the IPO. Rather, it was because of the concerns which the capital markets regulators had with the allegations found in the Third Letter which led to the Appellant having to, he says, remove his vendor shares from the sale. This is not a loss, even if it can be proven, which is protected by the tort of defamation. It would be a different matter in a case where defamatory materials were published calling a trader dishonest (whether in the way of his trade or otherwise). He may as a result suffer a fall in custom because of customer shunning him having heard of his reputation of being dishonest. In such a case, the plaintiff may either claim for a loss of reputation generally, or, if he can specifically prove so, the fall in custom resulting from the damaged reputation as special damages, such loss being the particular loss he suffered in his circumstances. …

[emphasis in original omitted; emphasis added in italics and bold italics]

Special damage must be pleaded by the claimant in order to entitle the claimant to prove it. Normally the pleading and also the evidence in proof must be of particular instances of loss, so that where specific instances are not pleaded they may be produced in proof, and where pleaded they may be proved only by evidence of the specific losses. Where, however, the facts do not admit of particularising specific instances of loss, then the courts are prepared to accept a generalised statement of special damage in pleading and general evidence of special damage in proof. This is particularly so where the slander is followed by general falling off of business and the claimant’s customers are a fluctuating body whose names are unknown to the claimant, as with the clientele of many shops or with the audiences of theatres. …

[emphasis added]

… Where a plaintiff brings an action for slander, by which he lost his customers in trade, he ought, in his declaration, to state the names of the customers, in order that the defendant may be enabled to meet the charge if it be false: but here the plaintiff was in possession of his office; and we are to conclude upon this record, that he was properly licensed. But how could he have stated the names of all his congregation? He has stated, that in consequence of the words spoken of by the defendant, he was removed from his office, and lost the emoluments of it, which, I think, is sufficient.

[emphasis added]

… In my judgment, the level of precision that is required when pleading an issue or case, including a particular head of damages, should be determined by the need to provide a fair and sufficient indication to the Court and the opposing party of the case that is being brought and that the opposing party has to meet. Although I am not aware of specific authority on the point, modern pleading practice should not be and is not constrained by whether the label “general” or “special” damages is given to a particular item of claim. …

74 I will never know the unknown damage but the taint can spread, word of mouth, life [sic] wildfire and the taint remains for a long time. I would have lost the business for good, especially since mine is not corporate clients who have a lot of work flowing. For a small firm lawyer, their work is their reputation and their reputation is everything. For me, the lost is unspeakable and huge. …

75 Hence, I would state that my losses are at least $500,000.00 plus legal costs of up to $150,000.00 exclusive of disbursements.

16 The actual damage that I suffered can never be fully quantified save to say that the damages are in the region of hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions.

…

18 I can state categorically that I have lost countless potential clients through the defamation posting. During the trial for liability I have testified that I did enbloc deals before the posting. Each enbloc deal is worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees. Many divorce cases have been lost too. It is unimaginable how much clients and potential income I have lost through the malicious posting.

19 I can never fully quantify the losses that I have suffered from the fallout from the vicious defamatory posting by the Defendant.

… I used to refer at least 25 cases a year, and I trust that the legal fees for each of this case will average $2,500.00 for conveyance, and about $3,500.00 for uncontested divorce and perhaps up to $15,000.00 for contested, and if heavily contested it could be about $30,000.00. I also refer Wills, POA, Probate, letters of Administration matters. So, I would state that perhaps she would earn about, going by a conservative amount of say $5,000.00 per case, she would earn about $125k per year from my referrals.

145 In a defamation case, having decided, what the statement in issue means, the court must then decide if it is defamatory of the plaintiff. If so, liability for defamation is established, and the court must then go on to decide what damages the plaintiff is entitled to. It is at that stage that the issue of credibility, or credence, comes into play.

146 It seems to me that it would be contrary to principle if, when assessing those damages, the court could not take into account the degree of credence which readers of an article would give, and would be appreciated by the plaintiff to give, to the accuracy of any defamatory statement it contained. As in any case of tort, it is a fundamental principle that (subject to any question of exemplary damages, which do not arise here) damages are meant to be compensatory, and that principle would be breached if this factor had to be ignored.

147 When engaged on the relatively objective exercise of interpreting the article, it is clear that the court is bound to take into account any relevant factual circumstances which existed at the time of the publication. It would therefore be very strange if the court could not take into account any relevant factual circumstances when considering the more subjective question of the extent, if any, to which any statement in the article would have been believed. …

It is one thing to be slandered (even seriously) in front of an unknown passer-by (eg in front of C, A says to B, ‘you stole that item from the shop’), it is quite another for a person to be slandered to his/her employer. In the first example, if the passer-by does not know the claimant, even though, in the circumstances, s/he has been sufficiently identified, then the harm caused to reputation will be limited because of anonymity. Importantly, it would usually be impossible for there to be any grapevine effect, because the publishee cannot pass on the information in a way that has any damaging effect on the claimant.

[emphasis added]

(2) An expert’s report must —

…

(b) give details of any literature or other material which the expert witness has relied on in making the report;

(c) contain a statement setting out the issues which he has been asked to consider and the basis upon which the evidence was given;

(d) if applicable, state the name and qualifications of the person who carried out any test or experiment which the expert has used for the report and whether or not such test or experiment has been carried out under the expert’s supervision;

(e) where there is a range of opinion on the matters dealt with in the report —

(i) summarise the range of opinion; and

(ii) give reasons for his opinion;

(f) contain a summary of the conclusions reached;

(g) contain a statement of belief of correctness of the expert’s opinion;

…

… Dealing with it generally, we recognise that as a consequence of modern technology and communication systems any such stories will have the capacity to ‘go viral’ more widely and more quickly than ever before. Indeed, it is obvious that today, with the ready availability of the world wide web and of social networking sites, the scale of this problem has been immeasurably enhanced, especially for libel claimants who are already, for whatever reason, in the public eye. In our judgment, in agreement with the judge, this percolation phenomenon is a legitimate factor to be taken into account in the assessment of damages.

Another consideration relevant to the determination of the quantum of general damages to be awarded is its intended deterrent effect. In The Gleaner Co Ltd v Abrahams [2004] 1 AC 628, the Privy Council (per Lord Hoffman[n]) said (at 646):

[D]efamation cases have important features not shared by personal injury claims. The damages often serve not only as compensation but also as an effective and necessary deterrent. The deterrent is effective because the damages are paid either by the defendant himself or under a policy of insurance which is likely to be sensitive to the incidence of such claims.

[emphasis in original]

41 Lord Lester complains that this passage indicates that Forte P did not understand the distinction between punitive and compensatory damages and wrongly introduced a punitive element into his substituted award of J$35m. Their Lordships reject this submission. In their opinion Forte P’s observation reflects an entirely orthodox view of the dual function of compensatory damages. Ever since the distinction between compensatory and exemplary damages was formulated by Lord Devlin in Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 it has been recognised that compensatory damages may also have a punitive, deterrent or exemplary function. What distinguishes exemplary damages for the purpose of the Rookes v Barnard dichotomy is that they do not have a compensatory function. …

42 … In the case of any tort, liability to pay damages as compensation for loss or harm is capable of having some deterrent or exemplary effect and this is particularly true of defamation; first because it is an intentional tort and secondly because the conduct of the defendant is capable of aggravating the damages. It is true that in Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027, 1077 Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone LC said that compensatory and exemplary damages were “as incompatible as oil and vinegar” but most judges have accepted that in many cases the two purposes are inextricably mixed. The monetary value which a society places upon reputation and freedom from unjustified shame and humiliation is bound to be a conventional figure. The higher it is set, the greater the deterrence.

[emphasis added in italics and bold italics]

… to augment a sum awarded in general damages to compensate for the enhanced hurt suffered by the plaintiff due to the aggravation of the injury by the manner in which the defendant committed the wrong or by his motive in so doing, either or both of which might have caused further injury to the plaintiff’s dignity and pride …

[emphasis in original]

34 The defendant states in her affidavit of evidence-in-chief (“AEIC”) that “the [p]laintiff had prepared a fake contract between the Filipino and Mr Liao” and that “a copy of the said contract … is … exhibited at [pp] 32–36 of [the defendant’s exhibit]”. Page 36 of the defendant’s exhibit contains signatures of one Mr Kok Chiew Leong (“Mr Kok”) and Mr Liao. During cross-examination, the defendant was referred to pages 32–36 of her AEIC and confirmed repeatedly that the Gold Deal agreement was signed at page 36.

35 However, page 36 of the defendant’s exhibit is identical to page 523 of the plaintiff’s exhibit in her AEIC, which is the signature page to a different agreement, namely, a Joint Venture Agreement between Oasis Realtors & Consultants Pte Ltd and Super Nice Co Ltd. The identical signature pages contain the signatures of Mr Kok, on behalf of Oasis Realtors & Consultants Pte Ltd, and Mr Liao on the other hand, for and on behalf of Super Nice Co Ltd. At the bottom of page 36 of the defendant’s AEIC exhibit, it even states “Joint Venture Agreement” and carries the page number “5”, in contrast to the earlier pages of the Gold Deal agreement which were not numbered. In my view, it is apparent that the defendant’s assertion that page 36 of her AEIC exhibit contains the signatures for the Gold Deal agreement is false.

36 In response to my questions raised during the trial, the defendant insisted that page 36 contained the signatures for the Gold Deal agreement. She adapted her evidence to state that they were simultaneously signatures for both the Joint Venture Agreement and the Gold Deal agreement. She confirmed that they were signed on the same day at the same time at the same location. In my view, the defendant was spinning another falsehood to cover her earlier one. Her explanation simply does not stack up against the documentary evidence. The parties to both agreements are plainly different. The Joint Venture Agreement, which the signature page was taken from, is between Oasis Realtors & Consultants Pte Ltd and Super Nice Co Ltd. The Gold Deal agreement is between Ms Cornelia and Mr Liao. The signature page only refers to one “Agreement”.

37 The defendant also stated during the trial that she gave a copy of the signed Gold Deal agreement to her present counsel. Both Mr Tan Hiang Teck Simon, lead counsel for the defendant, and Ms Tan-Goh Song Gek Alice (Mr Tan’s instructing solicitor) confirmed that they have never received or seen such a document. In my view, this was yet another falsehood by the defendant and speaks volumes of the defendant’s lack of integrity and credibility as a witness.

38 Recognising that her purported explanations hold no water, the defendant then sought to retract all her assertions some seven months later by way of her application for leave to adduce further evidence after the close of the trial and after parties had exchanged closing submissions. In her affidavit supporting the application, the defendant alleged that the signature page was “wrongly attached to the Gold Agreement instead of being inserted after the F1 (Terminal 5 Agreement)”. After hearing arguments, I had little hesitation dismissing that application.

[emphasis in original]

… there appears to be a trend of such damages rising steadily and significantly over the past few years, and in a few recent cases, each successive award appeared to overtop the preceding one. Such a trend should be discouraged; otherwise, damages for defamation would mount and eventually become extremely high, ranking almost with the grossly exorbitant awards so often made by juries in other jurisdictions. Lest it be misunderstood, we are not suggesting in any way that there should be a cap placed on quantum of damages for defamation. … Each case depends on its own facts and there is a great deal of factual diversity in defamation cases. However, we wish to stress that damages, even for defamation, should fall within a reasonable bracket so that what is awarded represents a fair and reasonable sum which is proportionate to the harm and injury occasioned to the victim who has been unjustly defamed. …

[emphasis added]