Any private investigator to recommended?

Hey! Your are right! I thought you are just joking. I visited SK Investigation website and saw him calling himself a genius. Oh my God!!! I think he don't know the meaning of genius....
 


Mikki: I managed to get a refund from SK Investigations. Same as what you say...before hire his service, everything also ok... After hired and paid money, all cannot.
 
Ok... Still no repy from SG Investigation. I called him a number of times and he kept avoiding my call. It seems like he operate alone but sometimes with a malay guy. I also called kokusai... WOW he say tat not only SG Investigatio and there is also one pi company in waterloo street which he trained up. In my heart, I was thinking as long as anyone trained by Dr Magnum, you will guess what's the standard is. My advice to anyone who need a pi, please check carefully before entrusting your case to them.
 
What kokusai say should be truth about SG investigation. In fact he say a lot of negative on SG investigation but at that time I just take note...
 
Economic Torts Chinese Bahasa Indonesian
Home>Laws of Singapore>Reference to Singapore Laws>Economic Torts



CHAPTER 21 ECONOMIC TORTS

Section 1 Introduction

Section 2 Inducing Breach of Contract

Section 3 Intimidation

Section 4 Conspiracy

Section 5 Unlawful Interference with Trade

Section 6 Malicious Falsehood

Section 7 Defamation


SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

21.1.1 This section outlines the law in relation to two groups of torts: the first seeks primarily to protect a person against harm to his trade and economic interests resulting from the deliberate acts of another; the second, comprising defamation and malicious falsehood, is concerned with the protection of one’s reputation.

21.1.2 In Singapore, the law on economic torts and defamation has its origins in English common law. Although there is now a substantial body of local case law on these subjects, and notwithstanding the dissimilar political and economic climates of the two jurisdictions, the key legal principles as applied in Singapore have remained largely similar to those in English law. That said, there have been, in Singapore, important legislative developments affecting both these areas. Thus, particular aspects of the common law on defamation have been modified by the Defamation Act (Cap 75, 1985 Rev Ed), and the extent to which the law on economic torts regulates market competition must now be understood in the light of the regulatory framework set out in the Competition Act 2004 (No 46 of 2004) (on Competition Law, see Chapter 27).

Return to the top


SECTION 2 INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT

The Cause of Action

21.2.1 If A knows that B owes a contractual obligation to C, and procures or induces B to breach the said obligation such that C incurs damage as a result, A is liable to C for inducing the breach of B’s contract obligation to C.

The Mental Element

21.2.2 To establish this cause of action, it must be proven that (a) A knows of the existence of B’s contractual relationship with C, and (b) that A has intended the breach of the obligation. A’s knowledge may be inferred from surrounding circumstances, and need not relate to the precise terms of the contract.

Inducement

21.2.3 Further, A’s action must be a direct and effective cause of B’s breach. This requirement is most obviously satisfied when A directly persuades B, whether with the promise of reward or incentives or otherwise, to commit the relevant breach.

Breach

21.2.4 It is essential that A’s inducement results in the breach of B’s contractual undertaking to C. This does not, however, require proof that the breach in question results in any liability. Thus, it will suffice if it is proven that B is in breach of his contractual obligation, but does not in fact incur any liability by reason, for instance, of an operative exemption clause.

Damage

21.2.5 The aggrieved party must have sustained damage as a result of the breach of contract. Such damage may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

Justification

21.2.6 A person’s interference with another’s contract may be justified in exceptional circumstances. The precise scope of this defence is unclear, but it is generally thought to be a narrow defence which can only be founded upon a careful examination of all the facts. Some instances in which the defence has succeeded include those where the interference is the inevitable result of asserting a pre-existing legal right, or where it is necessary for the protection of public morals.

Inducing Breach of Other Obligations

21.2.7 The tort of inducing breach of contract has been extended to other types of enforceable obligations. Thus, a person who induces another to breach a statutory or an equitable obligation may also commit an actionable tort.

Return to the top


SECTION 3 INTIMIDATION

The Cause of Action

21.3.1 If A makes a threat of unlawful conduct against B so as to prevent B from doing that which he is entitled to do, resulting in harm to C, A is liable to C.

Threat of Unlawful Conduct

21.3.2 The threat made by A must have the effect of compelling B to comply with A’s wishes so as to avoid the unpleasant consequences threatened by A. It is insufficient if A merely makes idle abuses of which B takes little or no notice. The threat must also relate to unlawful conduct, such as the commission of a crime, tort, or contractual breach.

Damage

21.3.3 This tort is only actionable where the aggrieved party, C, has suffered damage as a result of A’s threat. Such damage includes all intended losses as well as damages that are not too remote.

Two-and Three-party Liability

21.3.4 It is generally accepted that the tort of intimidation may take the form of either a two or three-party interference. In a case involving three parties, A threatens B with a view to cause loss to C. Where there are only two parties, A makes an unlawful threat against B and cause loss to B. However, the imposition of tortious liability in this latter situation is more controversial because it has the tendency to obscure the distinction between the tort of intimidation and the threatened unlawful act.

Return to the top


SECTION 4 CONSPIRACY

The Cause of Action

21.4.1 Two or more persons commit the tort of conspiracy if they agree on a course of conduct to harm another. A conspiracy to commit an illegal act may also amount to a criminal offence. In the civil sphere, the tort of conspiracy may either be a straightforward conspiracy to injure, or a conspiracy using unlawful means.

(a) Conspiracy to Injure

Combination

21.4.2 The agreement or combination between the alleged conspirators is a rudimentary element of the tort of conspiracy to injure. Whether such agreement exists is largely a question of fact. The agreement may either be express or of a tacit nature. However, the mere proof of an agreement is insufficient as it has to be demonstrated that each of the conspirators has acted, or taken some step to further their common design.

Predominant Purpose to Injure

21.4.3 The conspirators’ intention to harm the victim is the gist of this tort. Thus, it is necessary to prove that such ill-intent is the predominant purpose with which the conspirators acted. It follows that where it can be proven that the design of the alleged conspirators is motivated by some legitimate purpose (such as the protection of their own economic interests), the tort is not made out even if injury to the victim is an unavoidable consequence of the scheme.

Damage

21.4.4 The victim of the conspiracy has to prove that he has suffered pecuniary loss. It is generally sufficient if such losses can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

(b) Conspiracy by Unlawful Means

21.4.5 A conspiracy using unlawful means is unlike the simple conspiracy to injure in two ways: first, it is characterised by the use of unlawful means; and secondly, while it requires proof of the conspirators’ intention to harm the victim, such intention does not have to be their predominant motive.

Unlawful Means

21.4.6 It is reasonably clear that an agreement between two or more persons to commit a tort (such as intimidation, or procuring a breach of contract) would amount to a conspiracy by unlawful means. A scheme to commit crimes that involve the use of violence or fraud or dishonesty would also clearly suffice. But there is no need for the unlawful means to be independently actionable as a civil wrong. This suggests that "unlawful means" is a broad concept, and any illegality that contributes to the causative link between the act of combination and the claimant's injury may suffice.

Return to the top


SECTION 5 UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH TRADE

The Cause of Action

21.5.1 At common law, there are cases that suggest that A commits a tort if he uses unlawful means to interfere with B’s trade or business, and A does so with the intention to harm B’s interests, thereby causing loss to B. Unlike the tort of inducing breach of contract, this tort is not primarily concerned with the protection of pre-existing legal obligations, but with proscribing the use of unlawful means which has harmful effects on others.

Intention

21.5.2 The mental element of this tort appears to be a narrow one: the alleged tortfeasor must have intended to injure the victim by targeting or directing his or her conduct at the latter. The fact that the alleged tortfeasor’s (unlawful) conduct would inevitably injure the victim is not, by itself, sufficient.

Unlawful Means: (a) Tort, Breach of Contract and Crimes

21.5.3 It is clear that all torts, breaches of contract and crimes constitute ‘unlawful means’ for the purposes of this tort. Despite some controversy, it now seems clear that even a wrong that is not independently actionable will also suffice. This is not limited only to situations where the tort is not actionable only because of the absence of resultant damage, but includes other legal wrongs that are not civilly actionable but are nevertheless effective causative agents of the victim's damage.

(b) Breach of Statutory Duty

21.5.4 The analysis is less straightforward where there is a breach of a statutory duty backed by criminal sanctions. As a general rule, statutory duties enforceable by way of criminal prosecution are presumed to be enforceable only in that manner. There are, however, two exceptional situations in which such statutory breaches could constitute ‘unlawful means’ for purposes of civil actions. First, if a statutory provision is, on its true construction, imposed for the benefit of a class of persons, a complainant who falls within that class may plead that his or her interests have been unlawfully interfered with. Secondly, where a statutory provision creates a public right, a complainant may enforce the breach of the provision in a civil suit if he or she has suffered special damage over and above that suffered by the public at large.

Return to the top


SECTION 6 MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD

The Cause of Action

21.6.1 A person is liable for malicious falsehood if he or she maliciously makes false representations in respect of another with a view to injure that person’s goodwill or economic reputation.

21.6.2 The tort of malicious falsehood may, in some respects, overlap with the tort of defamation (see Section 7 below). However, these two torts are clearly distinct. In particular, the tort of malicious falsehood is founded on (a) false representations, (b) malicious motives, and (c) the complainant’s incurrence of special damage, but none of these is a necessary element of the tort of defamation.

Falsehood

21.6.3 The element of falsehood is generally satisfied by proving that the tortfeasor has made a false statement in respect of the complainant’s person, property or trade. The offending representation may be verbal, written, or implied by conduct. It must also have been published to third persons (other than the complainant).

Malice

21.6.4 Malice may be established by proof that the maker of a statement knows of the untruth of a statement, or is reckless as to its truth. Mere negligence is not malice, but evidence of personal ill-will and spite, or an intention to injure, would suffice.

Special Damage

21.6.5 At common law, the tort of malicious falsehood is only actionable upon proof that the complainant has sustained special damage. This may require, for instance, evidence of quantifiable losses arising from loss of sales or asset devaluation. Note, however, that this aspect of the common law has been modified by section 6 of the Defamation Act (Cap 75, 1985 Rev Ed), such that the proof of special damage may be dispensed with if the false statements are published in writing or permanent form, and are calculated to cause pecuniary injury to the complainant in respect of his or her office, profession, calling, trade or business.

Return to the top


SECTION 7 DEFAMATION

Introduction

21.7.1 The objectives of the tort of defamation are, on the one hand, to protect personal reputation and, on the other, to ensure that the right of free speech and public communication are not unduly compromised. Within the tort of defamation, these competing interests and rights have to be judiciously balanced.

21.7.2 There are two forms of defamation: libel (words in permanent form) and slander (words in temporal or transient form). Libel is actionable per se without proof of special damage whilst slander would require such proof, unless specific common law and statutory exceptions apply. For example, special damage is not required to be proved in respect of words calculated to disparage the plaintiff in any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on at the time of the publication (see section 5 of the Defamation Act).

21.7.3 Apart from the civil tort of defamation, section 499 of the Penal Code provides for the offence of criminal defamation. For the prosecution of such an offence, it must be shown that the accused made the publication with the intention to harm the reputation of the defamed person, or knows or has reason to believe that such harm would result. The focus of this section is, however, on the civil tort of defamation.

The Elements of the Cause of Action

21.7.4 The three main requirements for a cause of action under the tort of defamation are as follows:

(a) The statement must be defamatory in nature;
(b) The statement must refer to the plaintiff; and
(c) The statement must be published.

(a) Defamatory in Nature

21.7.5 A statement is defamatory in nature if it tends to (i) lowers the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or (ii) cause the plaintiff to be shunned or avoided; or (iii) expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt or ridicule. This is based on the objective reasonable man test. The judge determines whether the test is satisfied in a particular case upon hearing the evidence adduced at the trial. There are no jury trials in Singapore.

21.7.6 In terms of construction, a statement may be defamatory in two ways: (i) via the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used or as may be reasonably inferred from the words; and (ii) by way of true or legal innuendo. True innuendo arises from words which appear innocuous, but may be understood to be disparaging of the plaintiff by third parties who have knowledge of special facts which are not generally known. To support a cause of action based on true innuendo, the plaintiff will have to plead those special facts known to such third parties to whom the statement has been published.

(b) Reference to Plaintiff

21.7.7 The plaintiff must show that the third party would reasonably understand the defamatory words to refer to the former. The intention of the defendant to defame the plaintiff is not a prerequisite. Thus, the defamation action may still succeed notwithstanding that the defendant did not intend to refer to the plaintiff, but to some other person or even a fictitious character bearing the same name.

21.7.8 Apart from natural persons, legal persons such as incorporated bodies (including companies) and some unincorporated bodies (for example, societies registered under the Societies Act, Cap 311, 1985 Rev Ed with the capacity to sue and be sued in its own name) may also bring defamation actions against persons who have made defamatory statements adversely affecting their commercial, trading or governing reputations.

21.7.9 In class or group defamation actions, the issue is whether the defamatory statement, though targeted at a class or group, is nonetheless reasonably understood by the reasonable third party to refer to the individual claimant(s). To ascertain whether such reference exists, criteria such as the group size, the generality and extravagance of the defamatory statement and other factors may be taken into consideration.

(c) Publication

21.7.10 The defamatory statement must have been communicated to third parties who would reasonably understand the statement to be defamatory of the plaintiff. Thus, the communication of the defamatory statement to the plaintiff alone would not be sufficient.

Defences: (a) Justification

21.7.11 The plaintiff is not required to prove that the defamatory statement is false. Instead, the defendant may establish the defence of justification by proving that the defamatory statement is true in substance and in fact. Where the allegedly defamatory statement is a comment, both the facts on which the comment is based and the comment itself must be substantiated. Similarly, where an innuendo is pleaded, both the statement and the innuendo have to be justified. Particulars of the statement(s) of fact and the true facts relied upon by the defendant must be pleaded (Order 78 Rule 3(2), Rules of Court). The defendant is not required to substantiate every charge so long as the unsubstantiated charges do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation (see section 8 of the Defamation Act). The defence of justification normally constitutes a complete defence against the plaintiff’s claims.

(b) Fair Comment

21.7.12 To succeed in the defence of fair comment, the defendant has to show that

(i) the words complained of are in the nature of a comment (that is, an expression of opinion as opposed to facts);
(ii) the comment is based on true facts – it is not necessary to prove the truth of all allegations of facts but only those facts alleged or referred to in the defamatory words which form the basis of the opinion (see section 9 of the Defamation Act);
(iii) the comment is fair, that is, it must be an honestly-held opinion of a fair-minded person though some allowance may be given for prejudices and exaggeration; and
(iv) the comment relates to a matter of public interest, that is, a matter which the public at large may legitimately be interested in or concerned with.

21.7.13 The defence of fair comment will not succeed if the defendant’s comments are motivated by malice. An opinion is made maliciously if it is shown that the defendent did not genuinely hold the view he expressed. Actuation by spite, animosity, intent to injure, intent to arouse controversy or other motivation, whatever it may be, even if it is the dominant or sole motive, does not of itself defeat the defence (see paragraph 21.7.14).

(c) Privilege

21.7.14 The next defence against the plaintiff’s claim in defamation is based on the concept of privilege. There are two types of privilege: absolute and qualified privilege. Absolute privilege cannot be defeated by the plaintiff’s proof that the defendant’s statements were motivated by malice. On the other hand, qualified privilege can be defeated by proof of malice. A statement is made maliciously if it was actuated by dominant improper motive(s). In addition, a statement which is made without belief in its truth or recklessly (that is, with indifference to its truth or falsity) is one that is published with malice.

Absolute Privilege

21.7.15 Absolute privilege arises in the following situations or circumstances:

(i) Parliamentary proceedings – the Members of Parliament are conferred immunity from both civil and criminal actions in respect of defamatory statements made in the course of parliamentary proceedings (see section 6 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, Cap 217, 2000 Rev Ed). Similarly, the reports, papers and journals relating to the proceedings the publication of which is authorised by Parliament are immune from suit (see section 7 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act).
(ii) Judicial proceedings – immunity is conferred on the judges, counsel, witnesses and parties in respect of statements made in the course of or for the purposes of judicial proceedings, including proceedings conducted by tribunals and bodies recognised by law and acting judicially. The fair, accurate and contemporaneous reports of judicial proceedings which are publicly heard are also absolutely privileged (section 11 of the Defamation Act). This privilege extends to a ‘fair and bona fide’ comment on such report.
(iii) Executive matters – this generally covers communications made by ministers and civil servants relating to state affairs.

Qualified Privilege

21.7.16 The defence of qualified privilege arises in the following instances:

(i) Where the defendant has an interest or duty to communicate information and the third party has the corresponding interest or duty to receive the information – for instance, communications made by solicitors for the purposes of advancing clients’ interests and communications between employers and employees in relation to work matters are ordinarily accorded qualified privilege.
(ii) Where the defendant makes a statement with a view to protect his or her self-interests (such as when he
or she is responding to accusations), such statements are privileged to the extent that they are published bona fide as well as relevant and necessary to protect such interests.
(iii) Where reports of parliamentary and judicial proceedings are fair and accurate, qualified privilege arises at common law (that is, outside the scope of the statutory provisions). Newspaper reports of parliamentary and judicial proceedings in the Commonwealth are also accorded qualified privilege statutorily (section 12 of the Defamation Act).

(d) Innocent Dissemination

21.7.17 The defence of innocent dissemination is generally available to intermediaries such as retail vendors, libraries and delivery agents. To avail of such a defence, the intermediary who participated in the distribution of the defamatory statements must show that he or she did not know that the publication was libellous, the circumstances or work could not have alerted the defendant to the libellous content and that such ignorance was not due to his or her negligence.

(e) Offer of Amends

21.7.18 The Offer of Amends is a procedure which permits a defendant to ward off a potential defamation action (or to procure, if the action has already commenced, its discontinuation thereof). The defendant has to first show that he or she has ‘innocently’ defamed another person and exercised all reasonable care in relation to the publication. The defendant must also offer to make a public apology and to take reasonably practicable steps to inform the persons who have been distributed with the copies of the publication that the contents are defamatory of the aggrieved party. The Offer of Amends constitutes a defence against any defamation action by the aggrieved party. If the offer is accepted by the aggrieved party and its terms are complied with by the defendant, the aggrieved party is precluded from suing the defendant in respect of the defamatory publication (see section 7 of the Defamation Act).

(f) Assent by Plaintiff

21.7.19 Where the plaintiff had clearly and unequivocally assented to the publication of the defamatory statement, that constitutes a valid defence to the defamation action.

Remedies

21.7.20 A plaintiff who has successfully established a cause of action in defamation against which there are no valid defences may obtain (a) monetary damages; and/or (b) injunctions restraining the publication, and/or (c) in exceptional circumstances, injunctions mandating that the defendant withdraw the defamatory statement.

Damages

21.7.21 Damages are awarded to vindicate the reputation of the plaintiff, provide consolation for the distress and hurt suffered by the plaintiff and to repair the damage to the plaintiff's reputation. The gravity of the statement, the standing of the plaintiff, the extent of the publication and the effect of the publication on the plaintiff are factors to be taken into consideration for ascertaining the quantum of the damages. The court also takes into account the intended deterrent effect against the defendant. The awards in personal injury cases do not provide a helpful guide in ascertaining the quantum of damages for defamation. The plaintiff has to prove that he or she suffered special damage, except in cases of libel or certain forms of slander (see Section 21.7.2 above). Whilst the principles of causation and remoteness are applicable in defamation, the quantification of special damages is not, however, an exact science.

Aggravated Damages

21.7.22 Aggravated damages may be awarded in appropriate cases. Aggravated damages, which are compensatory in nature, may be awarded in respect of the additional injury caused by the defendant’s conduct or bad motives. For purposes of ascertaining damages, the plaintiff is required to give full particulars in the statement of claim of the details of any conduct by the defendant which has allegedly increased the injury suffered (Order 78 Rule 3(3A), Rules of Court). The amounts for both general compensatory and aggravated damages (if any) are awarded to the plaintiff in one lump sum, though a breakdown of the respective sums should be provided.

Exemplary Damages

21.7.23 Exemplary or punitive damages are less common. Nonetheless, exemplary damages may be awarded as a deterrent measure where the defendant had published the defamatory statement in the expectation of profit or gain and was aware that the publication was untrue.

Mitigation

21.7.24 The defendant may make or offer an apology with a view to mitigating damages (see section 10 of the Defamation Act). Similarly, an undertaking by the defendant not to republish would generally go towards the mitigation of damages.

Injunctions

21.7.25 Injunctions are usually granted to prevent the future publication of defamatory materials only where such further publication is reasonably apprehended. The courts are generally more cautious of issuing interlocutory injunctions, and will do so only where it is clear that the words complained of were libellous and no defence could possibly apply.

Internet Defamation

21.7.26 With the advent of technology, globalisation and rise in the usage of the Internet, defamation in cyberspace is a real issue today. This problem, though not unique to Singapore, can have a significant impact considering the high proportion of Internet usage within the country for private, commercial and public purposes.

Internet Service Providers

21.7.27 With respect to the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), section 10 of the Electronic Transactions Act protects an ISP from liability arising from the making, publication, dissemination or distribution of third party materials, if the ISP were merely providing access to such materials. A third party refers, in this context, to a person over which the ISP has no effective control.

Conflicts of Laws

21.7.28 Defamation on the Internet also poses conflicts of law issues, particularly in relation to jurisdiction and choice of law. (On Conflicts of Laws, see Chapter 6)

Return to the top

Updated as at 28 October 2011


By: Gary Chan
Associate Professor of Law, School of Law
Singapore Management University

Lee Pey Woan
Associate Professor of Law, School of Law
Singapore Management University


Disclaimer: The articles and briefings on this website are for general information only. Readers are advised to seek specific legal advice before acting on the contents set out therein. If advice is required, please consult a Singapore lawyer or one of the writers of the relevant article or briefing. If you would like to contact the writers, please write to [email protected], indicating your queries and the name of the writer whom you wish to contact. The writer will be informed of your request and will contact you subsequently.



© 2012 Singapore Academy Of Law. All Rights Reserved. Sitemap Terms of Use Disclaimer
 
Economic Torts Chinese Bahasa Indonesian
Home>Laws of Singapore>Reference to Singapore Laws>Economic Torts



CHAPTER 21 ECONOMIC TORTS

Section 1 Introduction

Section 2 Inducing Breach of Contract

Section 3 Intimidation

Section 4 Conspiracy

Section 5 Unlawful Interference with Trade

Section 6 Malicious Falsehood

Section 7 Defamation


SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

21.1.1 This section outlines the law in relation to two groups of torts: the first seeks primarily to protect a person against harm to his trade and economic interests resulting from the deliberate acts of another; the second, comprising defamation and malicious falsehood, is concerned with the protection of one’s reputation.

21.1.2 In Singapore, the law on economic torts and defamation has its origins in English common law. Although there is now a substantial body of local case law on these subjects, and notwithstanding the dissimilar political and economic climates of the two jurisdictions, the key legal principles as applied in Singapore have remained largely similar to those in English law. That said, there have been, in Singapore, important legislative developments affecting both these areas. Thus, particular aspects of the common law on defamation have been modified by the Defamation Act (Cap 75, 1985 Rev Ed), and the extent to which the law on economic torts regulates market competition must now be understood in the light of the regulatory framework set out in the Competition Act 2004 (No 46 of 2004) (on Competition Law, see Chapter 27).

Return to the top


SECTION 2 INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT

The Cause of Action

21.2.1 If A knows that B owes a contractual obligation to C, and procures or induces B to breach the said obligation such that C incurs damage as a result, A is liable to C for inducing the breach of B’s contract obligation to C.

The Mental Element

21.2.2 To establish this cause of action, it must be proven that (a) A knows of the existence of B’s contractual relationship with C, and (b) that A has intended the breach of the obligation. A’s knowledge may be inferred from surrounding circumstances, and need not relate to the precise terms of the contract.

Inducement

21.2.3 Further, A’s action must be a direct and effective cause of B’s breach. This requirement is most obviously satisfied when A directly persuades B, whether with the promise of reward or incentives or otherwise, to commit the relevant breach.

Breach

21.2.4 It is essential that A’s inducement results in the breach of B’s contractual undertaking to C. This does not, however, require proof that the breach in question results in any liability. Thus, it will suffice if it is proven that B is in breach of his contractual obligation, but does not in fact incur any liability by reason, for instance, of an operative exemption clause.

Damage

21.2.5 The aggrieved party must have sustained damage as a result of the breach of contract. Such damage may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

Justification

21.2.6 A person’s interference with another’s contract may be justified in exceptional circumstances. The precise scope of this defence is unclear, but it is generally thought to be a narrow defence which can only be founded upon a careful examination of all the facts. Some instances in which the defence has succeeded include those where the interference is the inevitable result of asserting a pre-existing legal right, or where it is necessary for the protection of public morals.

Inducing Breach of Other Obligations

21.2.7 The tort of inducing breach of contract has been extended to other types of enforceable obligations. Thus, a person who induces another to breach a statutory or an equitable obligation may also commit an actionable tort.

Return to the top


SECTION 3 INTIMIDATION

The Cause of Action

21.3.1 If A makes a threat of unlawful conduct against B so as to prevent B from doing that which he is entitled to do, resulting in harm to C, A is liable to C.

Threat of Unlawful Conduct

21.3.2 The threat made by A must have the effect of compelling B to comply with A’s wishes so as to avoid the unpleasant consequences threatened by A. It is insufficient if A merely makes idle abuses of which B takes little or no notice. The threat must also relate to unlawful conduct, such as the commission of a crime, tort, or contractual breach.

Damage

21.3.3 This tort is only actionable where the aggrieved party, C, has suffered damage as a result of A’s threat. Such damage includes all intended losses as well as damages that are not too remote.

Two-and Three-party Liability

21.3.4 It is generally accepted that the tort of intimidation may take the form of either a two or three-party interference. In a case involving three parties, A threatens B with a view to cause loss to C. Where there are only two parties, A makes an unlawful threat against B and cause loss to B. However, the imposition of tortious liability in this latter situation is more controversial because it has the tendency to obscure the distinction between the tort of intimidation and the threatened unlawful act.

Return to the top


SECTION 4 CONSPIRACY

The Cause of Action

21.4.1 Two or more persons commit the tort of conspiracy if they agree on a course of conduct to harm another. A conspiracy to commit an illegal act may also amount to a criminal offence. In the civil sphere, the tort of conspiracy may either be a straightforward conspiracy to injure, or a conspiracy using unlawful means.

(a) Conspiracy to Injure

Combination

21.4.2 The agreement or combination between the alleged conspirators is a rudimentary element of the tort of conspiracy to injure. Whether such agreement exists is largely a question of fact. The agreement may either be express or of a tacit nature. However, the mere proof of an agreement is insufficient as it has to be demonstrated that each of the conspirators has acted, or taken some step to further their common design.

Predominant Purpose to Injure

21.4.3 The conspirators’ intention to harm the victim is the gist of this tort. Thus, it is necessary to prove that such ill-intent is the predominant purpose with which the conspirators acted. It follows that where it can be proven that the design of the alleged conspirators is motivated by some legitimate purpose (such as the protection of their own economic interests), the tort is not made out even if injury to the victim is an unavoidable consequence of the scheme.

Damage

21.4.4 The victim of the conspiracy has to prove that he has suffered pecuniary loss. It is generally sufficient if such losses can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

(b) Conspiracy by Unlawful Means

21.4.5 A conspiracy using unlawful means is unlike the simple conspiracy to injure in two ways: first, it is characterised by the use of unlawful means; and secondly, while it requires proof of the conspirators’ intention to harm the victim, such intention does not have to be their predominant motive.

Unlawful Means

21.4.6 It is reasonably clear that an agreement between two or more persons to commit a tort (such as intimidation, or procuring a breach of contract) would amount to a conspiracy by unlawful means. A scheme to commit crimes that involve the use of violence or fraud or dishonesty would also clearly suffice. But there is no need for the unlawful means to be independently actionable as a civil wrong. This suggests that "unlawful means" is a broad concept, and any illegality that contributes to the causative link between the act of combination and the claimant's injury may suffice.

Return to the top


SECTION 5 UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH TRADE

The Cause of Action

21.5.1 At common law, there are cases that suggest that A commits a tort if he uses unlawful means to interfere with B’s trade or business, and A does so with the intention to harm B’s interests, thereby causing loss to B. Unlike the tort of inducing breach of contract, this tort is not primarily concerned with the protection of pre-existing legal obligations, but with proscribing the use of unlawful means which has harmful effects on others.

Intention

21.5.2 The mental element of this tort appears to be a narrow one: the alleged tortfeasor must have intended to injure the victim by targeting or directing his or her conduct at the latter. The fact that the alleged tortfeasor’s (unlawful) conduct would inevitably injure the victim is not, by itself, sufficient.

Unlawful Means: (a) Tort, Breach of Contract and Crimes

21.5.3 It is clear that all torts, breaches of contract and crimes constitute ‘unlawful means’ for the purposes of this tort. Despite some controversy, it now seems clear that even a wrong that is not independently actionable will also suffice. This is not limited only to situations where the tort is not actionable only because of the absence of resultant damage, but includes other legal wrongs that are not civilly actionable but are nevertheless effective causative agents of the victim's damage.

(b) Breach of Statutory Duty

21.5.4 The analysis is less straightforward where there is a breach of a statutory duty backed by criminal sanctions. As a general rule, statutory duties enforceable by way of criminal prosecution are presumed to be enforceable only in that manner. There are, however, two exceptional situations in which such statutory breaches could constitute ‘unlawful means’ for purposes of civil actions. First, if a statutory provision is, on its true construction, imposed for the benefit of a class of persons, a complainant who falls within that class may plead that his or her interests have been unlawfully interfered with. Secondly, where a statutory provision creates a public right, a complainant may enforce the breach of the provision in a civil suit if he or she has suffered special damage over and above that suffered by the public at large.

Return to the top


SECTION 6 MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD

The Cause of Action

21.6.1 A person is liable for malicious falsehood if he or she maliciously makes false representations in respect of another with a view to injure that person’s goodwill or economic reputation.

21.6.2 The tort of malicious falsehood may, in some respects, overlap with the tort of defamation (see Section 7 below). However, these two torts are clearly distinct. In particular, the tort of malicious falsehood is founded on (a) false representations, (b) malicious motives, and (c) the complainant’s incurrence of special damage, but none of these is a necessary element of the tort of defamation.

Falsehood

21.6.3 The element of falsehood is generally satisfied by proving that the tortfeasor has made a false statement in respect of the complainant’s person, property or trade. The offending representation may be verbal, written, or implied by conduct. It must also have been published to third persons (other than the complainant).

Malice

21.6.4 Malice may be established by proof that the maker of a statement knows of the untruth of a statement, or is reckless as to its truth. Mere negligence is not malice, but evidence of personal ill-will and spite, or an intention to injure, would suffice.

Special Damage

21.6.5 At common law, the tort of malicious falsehood is only actionable upon proof that the complainant has sustained special damage. This may require, for instance, evidence of quantifiable losses arising from loss of sales or asset devaluation. Note, however, that this aspect of the common law has been modified by section 6 of the Defamation Act (Cap 75, 1985 Rev Ed), such that the proof of special damage may be dispensed with if the false statements are published in writing or permanent form, and are calculated to cause pecuniary injury to the complainant in respect of his or her office, profession, calling, trade or business.

Return to the top


SECTION 7 DEFAMATION

Introduction

21.7.1 The objectives of the tort of defamation are, on the one hand, to protect personal reputation and, on the other, to ensure that the right of free speech and public communication are not unduly compromised. Within the tort of defamation, these competing interests and rights have to be judiciously balanced.

21.7.2 There are two forms of defamation: libel (words in permanent form) and slander (words in temporal or transient form). Libel is actionable per se without proof of special damage whilst slander would require such proof, unless specific common law and statutory exceptions apply. For example, special damage is not required to be proved in respect of words calculated to disparage the plaintiff in any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on at the time of the publication (see section 5 of the Defamation Act).

21.7.3 Apart from the civil tort of defamation, section 499 of the Penal Code provides for the offence of criminal defamation. For the prosecution of such an offence, it must be shown that the accused made the publication with the intention to harm the reputation of the defamed person, or knows or has reason to believe that such harm would result. The focus of this section is, however, on the civil tort of defamation.

The Elements of the Cause of Action

21.7.4 The three main requirements for a cause of action under the tort of defamation are as follows:

(a) The statement must be defamatory in nature;
(b) The statement must refer to the plaintiff; and
(c) The statement must be published.

(a) Defamatory in Nature

21.7.5 A statement is defamatory in nature if it tends to (i) lowers the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or (ii) cause the plaintiff to be shunned or avoided; or (iii) expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt or ridicule. This is based on the objective reasonable man test. The judge determines whether the test is satisfied in a particular case upon hearing the evidence adduced at the trial. There are no jury trials in Singapore.

21.7.6 In terms of construction, a statement may be defamatory in two ways: (i) via the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used or as may be reasonably inferred from the words; and (ii) by way of true or legal innuendo. True innuendo arises from words which appear innocuous, but may be understood to be disparaging of the plaintiff by third parties who have knowledge of special facts which are not generally known. To support a cause of action based on true innuendo, the plaintiff will have to plead those special facts known to such third parties to whom the statement has been published.

(b) Reference to Plaintiff

21.7.7 The plaintiff must show that the third party would reasonably understand the defamatory words to refer to the former. The intention of the defendant to defame the plaintiff is not a prerequisite. Thus, the defamation action may still succeed notwithstanding that the defendant did not intend to refer to the plaintiff, but to some other person or even a fictitious character bearing the same name.

21.7.8 Apart from natural persons, legal persons such as incorporated bodies (including companies) and some unincorporated bodies (for example, societies registered under the Societies Act, Cap 311, 1985 Rev Ed with the capacity to sue and be sued in its own name) may also bring defamation actions against persons who have made defamatory statements adversely affecting their commercial, trading or governing reputations.

21.7.9 In class or group defamation actions, the issue is whether the defamatory statement, though targeted at a class or group, is nonetheless reasonably understood by the reasonable third party to refer to the individual claimant(s). To ascertain whether such reference exists, criteria such as the group size, the generality and extravagance of the defamatory statement and other factors may be taken into consideration.

(c) Publication

21.7.10 The defamatory statement must have been communicated to third parties who would reasonably understand the statement to be defamatory of the plaintiff. Thus, the communication of the defamatory statement to the plaintiff alone would not be sufficient.

Defences: (a) Justification

21.7.11 The plaintiff is not required to prove that the defamatory statement is false. Instead, the defendant may establish the defence of justification by proving that the defamatory statement is true in substance and in fact. Where the allegedly defamatory statement is a comment, both the facts on which the comment is based and the comment itself must be substantiated. Similarly, where an innuendo is pleaded, both the statement and the innuendo have to be justified. Particulars of the statement(s) of fact and the true facts relied upon by the defendant must be pleaded (Order 78 Rule 3(2), Rules of Court). The defendant is not required to substantiate every charge so long as the unsubstantiated charges do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation (see section 8 of the Defamation Act). The defence of justification normally constitutes a complete defence against the plaintiff’s claims.

(b) Fair Comment

21.7.12 To succeed in the defence of fair comment, the defendant has to show that

(i) the words complained of are in the nature of a comment (that is, an expression of opinion as opposed to facts);
(ii) the comment is based on true facts – it is not necessary to prove the truth of all allegations of facts but only those facts alleged or referred to in the defamatory words which form the basis of the opinion (see section 9 of the Defamation Act);
(iii) the comment is fair, that is, it must be an honestly-held opinion of a fair-minded person though some allowance may be given for prejudices and exaggeration; and
(iv) the comment relates to a matter of public interest, that is, a matter which the public at large may legitimately be interested in or concerned with.

21.7.13 The defence of fair comment will not succeed if the defendant’s comments are motivated by malice. An opinion is made maliciously if it is shown that the defendent did not genuinely hold the view he expressed. Actuation by spite, animosity, intent to injure, intent to arouse controversy or other motivation, whatever it may be, even if it is the dominant or sole motive, does not of itself defeat the defence (see paragraph 21.7.14).

(c) Privilege

21.7.14 The next defence against the plaintiff’s claim in defamation is based on the concept of privilege. There are two types of privilege: absolute and qualified privilege. Absolute privilege cannot be defeated by the plaintiff’s proof that the defendant’s statements were motivated by malice. On the other hand, qualified privilege can be defeated by proof of malice. A statement is made maliciously if it was actuated by dominant improper motive(s). In addition, a statement which is made without belief in its truth or recklessly (that is, with indifference to its truth or falsity) is one that is published with malice.

Absolute Privilege

21.7.15 Absolute privilege arises in the following situations or circumstances:

(i) Parliamentary proceedings – the Members of Parliament are conferred immunity from both civil and criminal actions in respect of defamatory statements made in the course of parliamentary proceedings (see section 6 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, Cap 217, 2000 Rev Ed). Similarly, the reports, papers and journals relating to the proceedings the publication of which is authorised by Parliament are immune from suit (see section 7 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act).
(ii) Judicial proceedings – immunity is conferred on the judges, counsel, witnesses and parties in respect of statements made in the course of or for the purposes of judicial proceedings, including proceedings conducted by tribunals and bodies recognised by law and acting judicially. The fair, accurate and contemporaneous reports of judicial proceedings which are publicly heard are also absolutely privileged (section 11 of the Defamation Act). This privilege extends to a ‘fair and bona fide’ comment on such report.
(iii) Executive matters – this generally covers communications made by ministers and civil servants relating to state affairs.

Qualified Privilege

21.7.16 The defence of qualified privilege arises in the following instances:

(i) Where the defendant has an interest or duty to communicate information and the third party has the corresponding interest or duty to receive the information – for instance, communications made by solicitors for the purposes of advancing clients’ interests and communications between employers and employees in relation to work matters are ordinarily accorded qualified privilege.
(ii) Where the defendant makes a statement with a view to protect his or her self-interests (such as when he
or she is responding to accusations), such statements are privileged to the extent that they are published bona fide as well as relevant and necessary to protect such interests.
(iii) Where reports of parliamentary and judicial proceedings are fair and accurate, qualified privilege arises at common law (that is, outside the scope of the statutory provisions). Newspaper reports of parliamentary and judicial proceedings in the Commonwealth are also accorded qualified privilege statutorily (section 12 of the Defamation Act).

(d) Innocent Dissemination

21.7.17 The defence of innocent dissemination is generally available to intermediaries such as retail vendors, libraries and delivery agents. To avail of such a defence, the intermediary who participated in the distribution of the defamatory statements must show that he or she did not know that the publication was libellous, the circumstances or work could not have alerted the defendant to the libellous content and that such ignorance was not due to his or her negligence.

(e) Offer of Amends

21.7.18 The Offer of Amends is a procedure which permits a defendant to ward off a potential defamation action (or to procure, if the action has already commenced, its discontinuation thereof). The defendant has to first show that he or she has ‘innocently’ defamed another person and exercised all reasonable care in relation to the publication. The defendant must also offer to make a public apology and to take reasonably practicable steps to inform the persons who have been distributed with the copies of the publication that the contents are defamatory of the aggrieved party. The Offer of Amends constitutes a defence against any defamation action by the aggrieved party. If the offer is accepted by the aggrieved party and its terms are complied with by the defendant, the aggrieved party is precluded from suing the defendant in respect of the defamatory publication (see section 7 of the Defamation Act).

(f) Assent by Plaintiff

21.7.19 Where the plaintiff had clearly and unequivocally assented to the publication of the defamatory statement, that constitutes a valid defence to the defamation action.

Remedies

21.7.20 A plaintiff who has successfully established a cause of action in defamation against which there are no valid defences may obtain (a) monetary damages; and/or (b) injunctions restraining the publication, and/or (c) in exceptional circumstances, injunctions mandating that the defendant withdraw the defamatory statement.

Damages

21.7.21 Damages are awarded to vindicate the reputation of the plaintiff, provide consolation for the distress and hurt suffered by the plaintiff and to repair the damage to the plaintiff's reputation. The gravity of the statement, the standing of the plaintiff, the extent of the publication and the effect of the publication on the plaintiff are factors to be taken into consideration for ascertaining the quantum of the damages. The court also takes into account the intended deterrent effect against the defendant. The awards in personal injury cases do not provide a helpful guide in ascertaining the quantum of damages for defamation. The plaintiff has to prove that he or she suffered special damage, except in cases of libel or certain forms of slander (see Section 21.7.2 above). Whilst the principles of causation and remoteness are applicable in defamation, the quantification of special damages is not, however, an exact science.

Aggravated Damages

21.7.22 Aggravated damages may be awarded in appropriate cases. Aggravated damages, which are compensatory in nature, may be awarded in respect of the additional injury caused by the defendant’s conduct or bad motives. For purposes of ascertaining damages, the plaintiff is required to give full particulars in the statement of claim of the details of any conduct by the defendant which has allegedly increased the injury suffered (Order 78 Rule 3(3A), Rules of Court). The amounts for both general compensatory and aggravated damages (if any) are awarded to the plaintiff in one lump sum, though a breakdown of the respective sums should be provided.

Exemplary Damages

21.7.23 Exemplary or punitive damages are less common. Nonetheless, exemplary damages may be awarded as a deterrent measure where the defendant had published the defamatory statement in the expectation of profit or gain and was aware that the publication was untrue.

Mitigation

21.7.24 The defendant may make or offer an apology with a view to mitigating damages (see section 10 of the Defamation Act). Similarly, an undertaking by the defendant not to republish would generally go towards the mitigation of damages.

Injunctions

21.7.25 Injunctions are usually granted to prevent the future publication of defamatory materials only where such further publication is reasonably apprehended. The courts are generally more cautious of issuing interlocutory injunctions, and will do so only where it is clear that the words complained of were libellous and no defence could possibly apply.

Internet Defamation

21.7.26 With the advent of technology, globalisation and rise in the usage of the Internet, defamation in cyberspace is a real issue today. This problem, though not unique to Singapore, can have a significant impact considering the high proportion of Internet usage within the country for private, commercial and public purposes.

Internet Service Providers

21.7.27 With respect to the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), section 10 of the Electronic Transactions Act protects an ISP from liability arising from the making, publication, dissemination or distribution of third party materials, if the ISP were merely providing access to such materials. A third party refers, in this context, to a person over which the ISP has no effective control.

Conflicts of Laws

21.7.28 Defamation on the Internet also poses conflicts of law issues, particularly in relation to jurisdiction and choice of law. (On Conflicts of Laws, see Chapter 6)

Return to the top

Updated as at 28 October 2011


By: Gary Chan
Associate Professor of Law, School of Law
Singapore Management University

Lee Pey Woan
Associate Professor of Law, School of Law
Singapore Management University


Disclaimer: The articles and briefings on this website are for general information only. Readers are advised to seek specific legal advice before acting on the contents set out therein. If advice is required, please consult a Singapore lawyer or one of the writers of the relevant article or briefing. If you would like to contact the writers, please write to [email protected], indicating your queries and the name of the writer whom you wish to contact. The writer will be informed of your request and will contact you subsequently.



© 2012 Singapore Academy Of Law. All Rights Reserved. Sitemap Terms of Use Disclaimer
 
Hello Lawrence, thanks for dedicating your first two posts to such a lengthy cut and paste.

Tort is indeed a very interesting part of law that had banished many sleepy yawns and got many of us lazybones stitting uo in class and regaling over exciting and some hilarious casenotes. The law of tort is indeed very pervasive in our daily lives.

Your two posts look similar, despite the 45 minute time difference in your first and second cut paste posting. Is there something I overlooked that the second post had which your first cut paste did not?

Pls enlighten if so....
 
Blueblur, Kekeke, good question there leh! ;-) love your candidness! :))

Well, was there anyone in earlier threads who was complaining about PI firm SK security and investigation svs? I never paid much attention to if they had a bad review or good, but I reckon such cut paste posts are either intended as a "warning" salvo, or perhaps an "enlightenment" injection that we can learn plenty from?

New beginning lagi solid! Straight ask "u post wrong thread siboh?" hahahaha, good one there, new beginning!!! Made me laugh and laugh and laugh!

And yes, a good laugh is much needed after a tiring yet fulfilling day... I love candidness! Thank you! Muack Muack!
 
Actually, Lawrence, while the two cut n paste posts are fine (at least with me...), it would actually help more people on this forum ( since most of us genuine parents come to this forum to lend support, encourage and add value to one another without agenda in mind), if you as the boss of PI firm SK can break the relevant part of tort down into more digestible bits, with case notes and analogies. Analogies and stories typically help many to understand and grasp the word of the letter better. With better understanding, people find it easier usually to make better decisions to derive better outcomes,
 
Hello Ladies, i saw this website, and if anyone wants to know of a good PI firm, let me know. but please PM me instead of writing here. I will direct you to the person and you can speak to her yourself as sometimes some stuff is confidential.
happy.gif
 
This website is a forum to openly share their views. I am Surprise SK Investigations Lawrence is so incompetant to cut and paste. If Lawrence is so good, he no need to cut and paste.. it seems he is scared and defending. Whatever i said is true, check your records! you are making yourself a fatso fool in your industry. At least kokusai does not reply in anyway like you did. If Lawrence is the boss... then God bless You! You dont threaten people in this forum in this way. BY THE WAY> IF IT IS TRUE, THERE IS NO DEFAMATION!!!! SK lawrence, you dont threaten pple and if you are so good, check your records, find and sue me. So unprofessional with empty results and cheating people with all your wonder stories. Maybe you refund too many cases till you cannot recall. Shish... how can ever such a person like lawrence be in the investigation security... twist and turn with wonderful excuses and now COPY and PASTE. maybe should call himself COPYCAT!!!!
 
Elly Choo, if what u claim is true, no need to be frightened by him. From his 'cut and paste' i think he is trying to make u shut up if not his company reputation will be ruined.

It good u highlight bad services u received so that mummies here are not taken for a ride. And if he can post here, someone must have inform him.
 
wow......., elly maybe u got it wrong, he might be talking about the 'genius' part, that he think u wronged him.

anyway, if really he have any EQ, he should not come here to cut and paste to 'frighten' the mummies here. This will seriousily do a lot of damages to his reputation.
 
Come a cross this page to look for good PI, any1 can recommend me one ? I dun wan PI firms as i tried SK before they really sucks! Really wasted money. I even heard that they almost got sued by cpis omg!
 
Thank you mothers for writing to me personally and sharing your bad experiences you had with SK. Some didnt get their money back and some had a paid for work done with no pictures. i wonder if SK has so much to write and yet i havent even heard from them after much waiting. Not reliable and too many people that had bad experience. Mummie's out ther, dont be afraid to stand up and tell the industry of your bad experience. i havent even received a letter from them or a letter. This forum is for us to show the good and bad pi's who we encounter and certainly dont want another person to go through the same problem like i did. we pay for value and not some cheapskate pi to cheat our hard earn money and give 1000 words of excuses!! SK is not what they claimed to be at all... i should have followed my gut feel not to engaged them when i stepped into their sk office. some mummies told me they walked out in 10 mins after walking in. SO what is lawrence trying to tell us with his long list of cut and paste... you decide
 
if he is good, he will not be afraid of ppl exposing his cheating ways and to the extent of threatening with his 'cut and paste'. whiich i believe he himself don't even understand.
 
i was a victim of SK investigations and i will voice out what happen. Sometime last year i had a problem with my husband and was searching on the internet for a pi firm. When i spoke to lawrence of SK on the phone. he assured me of my case and told me it would cost $xxxx of money and inform me that i have to go down to his office at Geylang to sign the contract and make payment. This is my first time and he told me that it was the procedure. After going down to his office and hearing me again, he then told me a different amount which was 3x more than what he told me on the phone... at my wits end and he told me he was the best and recommended by lawyers and all the pass stories of cases he had done and so i committed. After a week, i called him up and he told me that my husband was not seen and alot of excuses he told me and told me by the end of the 2nd week he would get back to me. At the end of the 2nd week, i called him up and more excuses he gave me... i repeated tried calling again and he avoid my calls and even when i use private number to call him. i went down to his office to look for him and there was no report or photos and all he did was verbally tell me what happen! Angrily i shouted at him and he warn me that he could sue me and i had signed a contract with him. HOW COULD LAWRENCE do such a thing.. mummies out there. please becareful. he squeezed me to my last dollar and i am not earning much. This is so unfair of SK Investigations. i should have read this forum before i engaged a pi. Mummies please be wary of SK
 
hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... before i engage a new services/ purchasing new product; be it slimming products/ mask products/ or engage new services;
for example, hair salons/manicure & RENOVATION co for our BTO flats / dog grooming............ I always go search for their reviews....
I know our age group are always deem as the IT-generations... always find cheap products from G-market.
ya, we young generations very cheap skate..... even small products like OPI nail polish also buy online cheap cheap $7.90
i even purchase USS tickets at $52 per adult on feb 2013 entry... CHEAP YEA... that's from hardwarezone... i cant rmb the seller, but should be easy to find. He has many thumbs up/likes.

CALL AND CHECK, CALL AND ANS. that is what i could advise u...
for overseas accomodation; try agencies. even for bangkok stays. their hotels are usually cheaper than online sites. CALL AND ASK
for local tickets like USS or legoland, go find agencies. they can sell CHEAP. even with transport sometimes.
for local tickets u can find for sellers in hardwarezone and in gumtree . these two forums got good deals.
for slimming products. google more. read more. find itx review .
for manicure , go find bloggers for reviews. or even photos from facebook.
for purchasing of clothing. ask more. get them to reply u on measurements and originality.
for new restaurants, not much you can read up, but if you are looking for big gatherings for festives, GOOGLE it
trust me, TYPE the name of that specific restaurant before u go down... ~food reviews are easily available online.


I know, you know, we know.... doing all these preparations is tidous.... but in return = will avoid wasting our $$$ on useless salon/ going down lousy spa for manicure done...
time consuming = low risk = lower possiblilty to regret.... especially renovation... we dont want to complain n regret in the apartment we stay next few years.........

itx always good to do survey thought online media ; especially forums.... (hardwarezone/cozyc0t/gumtree/mummysg) so many to choose from....
but sometimes rather slow replies.... or even sometimes urgent, i ask through facebook......................

WHAT I WILL ACTUALLY LOOK OUT FOR,
1) their company website; how is it done. how many testimonial is featured inside.
2) i call up and ask for quotations
3) sometime i judge, i do judgemental perceptions by their company address and location , and maybe the way their receptionist hand-over to enquiries
4) most importantly; before i make payment. i search online for REVIEW by real consumer/customer, testimonial on wesites.
look out for the number of LIKES and stars especially if im purchasing from dealers online...............

im rather surprise i caught this page by chance.... not much people actually do reviews on Private Investigators.......
or maybe usually those high-end taiitaiis are enjoying their coffees at TWG. or so......... or rather... those taiitaii who had engaged services . i dont know...


but my cousin has engaged Private investigations before.....

she had went one located at grandlink( i dunno which private-investigator is it). the office is quite remote, small, and quite old..... but rather she said, dissapointing... ....

end up, she engage the one located at tanjong-pagar. commercial investigations, seems creditable .........
they even reply to her service at late night, odd hours.
thumbs up!! Good services given. and we were given a offical report. she even mentioned they deal with many lawyers in singapore too.
saw their website. not only did they provide private eye for maritmonial cases for adultery , they even deal with brands or commercial frauds (heard)....

during my cousin's queries that time...
she told me that she can googles and checked across singapore.... the usual charges range from $200-$4000 for a day's survellience per day averagely.....
huge difference i know.... but just do your homeworkssssssssss if you can....


which one you wish to engage... is really up to individual.....

this is all what i can advise....
 
Oh that is very stuxpid of Sk investigators to cover up his flaws. I saw another website (joke of the year) kokusai. And i did some research and he claim to have some super force in him which the evidence will come to him at the end of the day. There is alot of funny things on his website. For entertainment, you can see his website
 
Vicky I agree with you. sk investigations is putting up too long duplicate comments just to cover up all those negative comments from mummie. He has under estimate all the mummie intelligence. Thinking that his 2 long duplicate comments can overide all those negative comments about sk investigations. Since sk is doing the dirty cover up all the negative comments, I will bring it all together for mummy to read:
1) Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 - 10:42 pm:
Oh. I do have a bad experience with one company in geylang call SK Investigations. He also blow up my case and my husband confronted me. My husband mock at me by saying how I get a stupid P.I standby at the carpark exit and follow me.
2) Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2012 - 12:10 am:
Yes I also have similar experience with SK investigations. It seems like he is doing the cases himself with a part time investigator. I asked for a refund.
3) Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2012 - 11:22 am:
I visited SK investigation website and seems ok and I think you are right. The way SK represented himself turned me off. He really think he is a genius
4) Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2012 - 8:04 pm:
Yes I remembered SK investigations. I used him about a year ago. He blow my case off. My husband is already in his 60s and he can tell me he lost the target when he came out from office. On the 2nd day, he lost it at a traffic light. Sigh.... And the worst is my husband is driving a van...
5) Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - 1:07 pm:
Hey! Your are right! I thought you are just joking. I visited SK Investigation website and saw him calling himself a genius. Oh my God!!! I think he don't know the meaning of genius....
6) Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - 9:13 pm:
Mikki: I managed to get a refund from SK Investigations. Same as what you say...before hire his service, everything also ok... After hired and paid money, all cannot.
7) Posted on Monday, December 10, 2012 - 12:59 am:
Hello Lawrence, thanks for dedicating your first two posts to such a lengthy cut and paste.

Tort is indeed a very interesting part of law that had banished many sleepy yawns and got many of us lazybones stitting uo in class and regaling over exciting and some hilarious casenotes. The law of tort is indeed very pervasive in our daily lives.

Your two posts look similar, despite the 45 minute time difference in your first and second cut paste posting. Is there something I overlooked that the second post had which your first cut paste did not?

Pls enlighten if so....
8) Posted on Monday, December 10, 2012 - 1:06 am:
Blueblur, Kekeke, good question there leh! ;-) love your candidness! :))

Well, was there anyone in earlier threads who was complaining about PI firm SK security and investigation svs? I never paid much attention to if they had a bad review or good, but I reckon such cut paste posts are either intended as a "warning" salvo, or perhaps an "enlightenment" injection that we can learn plenty from?

New beginning lagi solid! Straight ask "u post wrong thread siboh?" hahahaha, good one there, new beginning!!! Made me laugh and laugh and laugh!

And yes, a good laugh is much needed after a tiring yet fulfilling day... I love candidness! Thank you! Muack Muack!
9) Posted on Monday, December 10, 2012 - 1:14 am:
Actually, Lawrence, while the two cut n paste posts are fine (at least with me...), it would actually help more people on this forum ( since most of us genuine parents come to this forum to lend support, encourage and add value to one another without agenda in mind), if you as the boss of PI firm SK can break the relevant part of tort down into more digestible bits, with case notes and analogies. Analogies and stories typically help many to understand and grasp the word of the letter better. With better understanding, people find it easier usually to make better decisions to derive better outcomes,
10) Posted on Monday, December 31, 2012 - 3:01 pm:
This website is a forum to openly share their views. I am Surprise SK Investigations Lawrence is so incompetant to cut and paste. If Lawrence is so good, he no need to cut and paste.. it seems he is scared and defending. Whatever i said is true, check your records! you are making yourself a fatso fool in your industry. At least kokusai does not reply in anyway like you did. If Lawrence is the boss... then God bless You! You dont threaten people in this forum in this way. BY THE WAY> IF IT IS TRUE, THERE IS NO DEFAMATION!!!! SK lawrence, you dont threaten pple and if you are so good, check your records, find and sue me. So unprofessional with empty results and cheating people with all your wonder stories. Maybe you refund too many cases till you cannot recall. Shish... how can ever such a person like lawrence be in the investigation security... twist and turn with wonderful excuses and now COPY and PASTE. maybe should call himself COPYCAT!!!!
11) Posted on Monday, December 31, 2012 - 5:55 pm:
Elly Choo, if what u claim is true, no need to be frightened by him. From his 'cut and paste' i think he is trying to make u shut up if not his company reputation will be ruined.

It good u highlight bad services u received so that mummies here are not taken for a ride. And if he can post here, someone must have inform him.
12) Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2013 - 3:21 pm:
wow......., elly maybe u got it wrong, he might be talking about the 'genius' part, that he think u wronged him.

anyway, if really he have any EQ, he should not come here to cut and paste to 'frighten' the mummies here. This will seriousily do a lot of damages to his reputation.
13) Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 3:34 pm:
Thank you mothers for writing to me personally and sharing your bad experiences you had with SK. Some didnt get their money back and some had a paid for work done with no pictures. i wonder if SK has so much to write and yet i havent even heard from them after much waiting. Not reliable and too many people that had bad experience. Mummie's out ther, dont be afraid to stand up and tell the industry of your bad experience. i havent even received a letter from them or a letter. This forum is for us to show the good and bad pi's who we encounter and certainly dont want another person to go through the same problem like i did. we pay for value and not some cheapskate pi to cheat our hard earn money and give 1000 words of excuses!! SK is not what they claimed to be at all... i should have followed my gut feel not to engaged them when i stepped into their sk office. some mummies told me they walked out in 10 mins after walking in. SO what is lawrence trying to tell us with his long list of cut and paste... you decide
14) Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 4:04 pm:
if he is good, he will not be afraid of ppl exposing his cheating ways and to the extent of threatening with his 'cut and paste'. whiich i believe he himself don't even understand.
15) Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 5:05 pm:
i was a victim of SK investigations and i will voice out what happen. Sometime last year i had a problem with my husband and was searching on the internet for a pi firm. When i spoke to lawrence of SK on the phone. he assured me of my case and told me it would cost $xxxx of money and inform me that i have to go down to his office at Geylang to sign the contract and make payment. This is my first time and he told me that it was the procedure. After going down to his office and hearing me again, he then told me a different amount which was 3x more than what he told me on the phone... at my wits end and he told me he was the best and recommended by lawyers and all the pass stories of cases he had done and so i committed. After a week, i called him up and he told me that my husband was not seen and alot of excuses he told me and told me by the end of the 2nd week he would get back to me. At the end of the 2nd week, i called him up and more excuses he gave me... i repeated tried calling again and he avoid my calls and even when i use private number to call him. i went down to his office to look for him and there was no report or photos and all he did was verbally tell me what happen! Angrily i shouted at him and he warn me that he could sue me and i had signed a contract with him. HOW COULD LAWRENCE do such a thing.. mummies out there. please becareful. he squeezed me to my last dollar and i am not earning much. This is so unfair of SK Investigations. i should have read this forum before i engaged a pi. Mummies please be wary of SK
16) Posted on Saturday, March 30, 2013 - 2:33 am:
Oh that is very stuxpid of Sk investigators to cover up his flaws. I saw another website (joke of the year) kokusai. And i did some research and he claim to have some super force in him which the evidence will come to him at the end of the day. There is alot of funny things on his website. For entertainment, you can see his website
 
Joanne, I had used a PI and I had sent you a message with his name and contact.

He is quite professional and was an ex-police officer.
 
Piger, I have used the PI u recommended. His name is Jimmy, he didn't do a good job for me. Everything just use call to update and didn't even take one photographs for me.

Did u really used his service before? I feel cheated
 
My PI also never provide any photographs for me, but he provided a set of videos and a very clear report.

I think that is about the norm right now. With the report, I had countersued my wife for adultery and later reduced to "inappropriate behaviour" which her lawyer advised her to accept and pay for all my PI fee and part of my legal fee.
 
James K, the problem is he didn't even give me a report or DVD.

why u wan to reduce from adultery to "inappropriate behaviour"
 
Because for adultery, we will need to provide evidences of them in the act itself.

Inappropriate association (sorry not inappropriate behaviour), is amounting to implied adultery by the association.

Inappropriate association is normally taken by the judge as adultery beyond reasonable doubt.
 
are u saying there is no way to file divorce base on adultery?

My lawyer explained to me that the amount of seriousness are 1) adultery 2) unreasonable behaviour 3) Inappropriate association.

Is your PI evidence not strong for adultery?
 
my lawyer told me, to get adultery evidence, it doesn't mean have to catch them in bed, just circumstances evidence like they check-into hotel or going into a room, where there is no 3rd party
 
The thing is she cohabit with him and therefore she do not need to check into any hotel. We will not be able to take them sleeping in the same room either.

The PI report will only prove that they are cohabiting, and therefore an unreasonable behaviour called "Unreasonable association" which is amounting to implied adultery.

I am not too concern if it is adultery or not. I am more concerned about the custody, care and control of my children.
 
The thing is she cohabit with him and therefore she do not need to check into any hotel. We will not be able to take them sleeping in the same room either.

The PI report will only prove that they are cohabiting, and therefore an unreasonable behaviour called "Unreasonable association" which is amounting to implied adultery.

I am not too concern if it is adultery or not. I am more concerned about the custody, care and control of my children.
 
I found in the dictionary ; "Cohabitation is an arrangement where two people who are not married live together in an intimate relationship, particularly an emotionally and/or sexually intimate one, on a long-term or permanent basis."

Isnt this enough to use as adultery, if the other party want u to reduce it to improper association then u should have use it to bargain for other things like care and control of the children.
 
@New Begining.

Please believe me when I said I had tried. However, in Singapore law, what you did as a wife bares no consequences as what you will be doing as a "mother".

As mentioned. You can be a adulterous bastard with a few hundred different men, as long as it does not affect you as a mother (for example, you have lunch sex escapades with mass orgy with every male in the company) but still go home on time to take care of your children, it does not matter to the court.

Improper association might be more advantageous to me because adultery can be a one off incident, but improper association reflects a long term situation between the adulterer and adulteress.
 
James k, sorry to hear what u going thru. Sometimes it really takes some effort to get what u want. How your lawyer are able to use the evidence u have to turn the table against your wife.

If like what u say what a wife did bares no consequences as what she did as a mother. then there is no need to go court. Of course there are many factors which the court will take into consequences, if she neglect the child while dating with the 3rd party, how can custody be given to her. Anyway custody is not just during the court proceeding, even if the court granted custody to her, if she really can't take care of your child, u can step in to revert the court order to you. Sometime u lose a battle but long term u will win the war.
 
The Singapore law requires the guy to prove that the woman is not suitable to be a mother, which is often a uphill battle. We do not keep evidences of our wife's late night. We marry not to get divorce.

It is difficult to proof that she can't take care of the children. The law is making the men proof something that is very difficult to prove.

That is why most of the time when the guy gets custody, it is all due to the women giving up the custody or care and control.
 
James K, I think your lawyer might want to close the case fast and agreed to reduce from adultery to inappropriate associations easily, as I understand from my lawyer, inappropriate associations is the most mild amount all.
 
That is not what my lawyer said. She said, it depends on the evidences provided. There is inappropriate associations amounting to simple BGR and there is inappropriate associations amounting to implied adultery (as in my case, because she is cohabiting with her boyfriend).

I am looking at 2nd Opinion this Friday. Hopefully I have a good case.
 


so your lawyer states inappropriate associations amounting to implied adultery? Was it change from adultery earlier after your wife lawyer as to reduce it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Double Eyelid/Ptosis Surgery
Replies
0
Views
275
iwandoubleyelids
I
S
Private Driving Instructor
Replies
0
Views
2K
sooling
S
N
Any recommendations of Female OB-GYN at KKH.
Replies
1
Views
394
towkayneo
towkayneo
A
Recommended gyne in KKH
Replies
0
Views
174
Avocado_toast
A
J
Any recommendation for pediatrician during giving birth @ TMC?
Replies
1
Views
692
jessyjess
J

Back
Top