The court established that defamatory statements made at a press conference can lead to liability if the publisher fails to verify their truth and whether defenses like qualified privilege are not applicable.

Kenneth St James J:

Prelusion

[1] The Defendant: Oh Tong Keong (OTK) is a politician. He held a press conference. He invited the media to come to his press conference. He talked about the Plaintiff (P). P is a well-known politician. A press statement about the press conference was emailed out to various persons in the media.

[2] A "China Press" journalist attended the press conference. She wrote an article about what OTK said at the press conference. It was published in both print and online forms.

[3] P sued OTK and the "China Press" for libel, for the allegedly defamatory words and statements in the press statement and the "China Press" article.

[4] Should P succeed in his cause for libel? In other words, does OTK and the "China Press" have defences to P's suits for defamation?

Preliminaries

[5] P filed two libel suits — one against OTK vide Suit PA-23NCVC-1-01/2021 (Suit 1), and the other against China Press Berhad vide Suit PA-23NCVC-2-01/2021(Suit 2). Both Suit 1 and Suit 2 arise out of OTK's press conference on 25 September 2019.

[6] In Suit 1, OTK applied for, and (I was informed) with the consent of P and China Press Berhad, obtained an Order dated 20 October 2021 to "consolidate" Suit 1 and Suit 2, and for the two suits "to be tried together". The Order to consolidate and try the two suits together was granted by the then-presiding Judicial Commissioner.

[7] Having read the two respective sets of pleadings, however, it is my view that the two suits perhaps should not have been consolidated. First, the two suits consist of P's different causes for libel against different defendants: OTK and China Press Berhad.

[8] Second, consolidating the two suits means combining them into one suit, so that the trial becomes a single trial for the combined suit. This is distinct from trying the two separate suits "at the same time", as provided for under O 4 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2012, where, to save time and costs, the evidence produced through the witnesses common to both suits would bind all the parties in both suits.

[9] Third, OTK's defences and China Press Berhad's defences are different. There are three sets of impugned words (statements). P's cause against OTK is that he published or caused to be published the 1st set of impugned words (allegedly his words). P's cause against OTK is also for causing China Press Berhad to publish the 2nd and 3rd sets of impugned words (published by China Press Berhad in two identical news articles). Accordingly, OTK's defences against publishing or causing the publication of the 1st set of impugned words, are different from OTK's defences against causing the publication of the 2nd and 3rd sets of impugned words, which are also different from China Press Berhad's defences against publishing those 2nd and 3rd sets of impugned words.

[10] For example, whilst China Press Berhad mounts the Lucas Box justification defence and the defence of Reportage concerning the 2nd and 3rd sets of impugned words, OTK did not or could not mount these defences.

[11] Nevertheless, the trial proceeded as though the two suits were "consolidated" and "tried together".

[12] I make this remark to point out that, in my respectful view, these two suits should have been kept separate, i.e., not consolidated (even though they could have been tried at the same time), which would have kept the issues between P and OTK separate and distinct from the issues between P and China Press Berhad. This would have made the trial somewhat less complicated.

P's Pleaded C