Chao Hick Tin JC

This is an appeal against two interlocutory orders made by the assistant registrar on 31 October 1988 and 13 January 1989. Under the first order, leave was granted to the first and third defendants to issue certain interrogatories to the plaintiffs. The second order requires the plaintiffs to furnish a further and better list of documents. This is an action for libel on account of a certain letter which the first defendant wrote in his capacity as the managing partner of the second defendant. He is also the managing director of the third defendant. The matter arose out of a news article appearing in a newspaper, the Business Times, of 17 November 1987. In this news article, written by one Alvin Tay, it was reported that 'OCBC plans to recruit four top-ranking bankers' and the names of the four persons were given therein. In the letter written by the first defendant on the subject of maintaining confidentiality in the search for executives, and which was published in the Business Times of 28–29 November 1987, the following words, among others, appeared:

A case of how not to go about attracting top executives was demonstrated in the front page article which appeared in your 17 November issue regarding OCBC's reported plans to hire four named senior banking officials. Professional executive search firms would recoil in horror at such publicity.

Your reporter has met his professional duty to 'find and report the news', but there is a prima facie case of rank amateurism or carelessness at OCBC to have allowed such a breach of confidentiality to happen.

It shows clearly how difficult it is for an organization to maintain confidentiality when it conducts its own search. The leakage is potentially damaging to those named, at the very least embarrassing, and the effect on the morale of their present staff and indeed, on that of the staff at OCBC, must be unfortunate.

The plaintiffs allege that by reason of the publication of those words they had been injured in their reputation and brought into public scandal, odium and contempt. They claim for damages and for an injunction.

In their defence filed, the defendants deny that the words complained of were defamatory of the plaintiffs. In the alternative, they say that those words are a fair comment on a matter of public interest, ie the methods of recruitment of senior executive officers by a major banking corporation. The defence of justification is not pleaded. As is required under O 78 r 3(2) of the Rules of the SUPREME COURT ['RSC']and in accordance with case law where the defence of fair comment is raised ( Cunningham-Howie v Dimbleby & Sons [1950] 2 All ER 882 ) the defendants have set out in their defence certain particulars of facts and matters upon which the comment was based. I do not think it is necessary for me to set out all the facts and matters enumerated except for para 6(2) and (8) which reads:

6(2) Executive search firms commonly act on behalf of commercial concerns to search for and select senior executives for recruitment by their clients. Any reputable search firm will carry out such duties in confidence in relation to the identities of their clients and selected executives, and will take all reasonable steps to ensure that the names are not prematurely publicly disclosed.

(8) The plaintiff had failed or neglected to take any sufficient steps to ensure that the facts and matters mentioned in Alvin Tay's said article were not publicly disclosed until the appointment of the four persons were officially announced.

Pursuant to an order of court granted at the instance of the plaintiffs, the first defendant furnished further particulars in relation to the said paras 6(2) and 6(8) of the defence. The first defendant listed out in 22 sub-paragraphs what are the reasonable steps a reputable search firm will take to ensure that the names of potential candidates are not prematurely publicly announced. In answer to the particulars required under para 6(8), the f