JUDGMENTBY: WINSLOW J

In the normal way I would have written a considerably longer judgment than the one I am now about to deliver. The various aspects both factual and legal which were presented to me in the course of a protracted trial, which commenced on 24th June 1968 and came to an end on 17th July this year do not, on further reflection, necessitate such a course because the essential issues of fact, despite detailed and exhaustive presentation and pursuit over 25 working days, are relatively simple and the law relating thereto reasonably clear.

The plaintiff is a member of the Bar who is now of about 8 years standing. His complaint is that the words hereinafter set out were uttered to his friends and his clients in terms calculated to disparage him in his office and he also contends that not only did these words lower him in the esteem of mankind generally but also tended to injure him in his profession.

Both the plaintiff and the defendant had been friends from about 1962 until 1964 when the plaintiff prevailed upon the defendant to let him have the tenancy of the front portion of the first floor of the premises known as 61A Chulia Street, of which the defendants wife was the landlord. In fact, the wife of the defendant is more or less the defendants nominee. To cut a long story short, that friendship came to an end towards the latter part of 1964. The defendant and the plaintiff who was his solicitor in some matters had been associated in a number of transactions and enterprises, into the details of which I think it is unnecessary here to probe. Suffice it to say that disagreement and dissatisfaction took place on the part of the defendant who desired to terminate his connection with these transactions and to dissociate himself from them entirely. Matters came to a head when the defendant refused to be involved in these enterprises and withdrew from further association with the plaintiff therein.

It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant then started a campaign designed to get rid of the plaintiff from the premises. The plaintiff, of course, had spent some money in renovating the premises to make them suitable for a lawyers practice. He had had air-conditioners put in, the walls white-washed and so on and had spent in all something like$ 7,000 in renovations.

It is quite clear from the evidence which is overwhelmingly in favour of the plaintiff that the defendant started a nuisance campaign to give as much trouble as possible to the plaintiff in order to induce him to leave the premises as well as to deprive him of clients both present and potential. There is tittle doubt that the defendant defied the plaintiff to do what he could to extricate himself from his unhappy position.

The alleged slanderous statements uttered by the defendant are set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the statement of claim as follows:--

"4(a) (Why) is that lawyer upstairs showing off. He cant even pay me

three months rent.

4(b) The lawyer upstairs owes me 3 months rent and still cant pay

up. He thinks that (because) hes a lawyer I should be afraid of

him.

5(a) That lawyer upstairs owes me 5 months rent and I intend to tell

all his clients about it.

5(b) What kind of lawyer is he; he owes me 7 months rent and cannot

pay."

Four witnesses were called on behalf of the plaintiff to testify to the fact that the defendant uttered these words to them separately and on the various dates and at the times set out as follows:--

Re. 4(a) Yeap Pik Kiong 7th April, 1965 at about 1.30 p.m.

Re. 4(b) Ho Yuan Wang, 9th April, 1965 at about 1.30 p.m.

Re. 5(a) Sng Song Teck, 7th April, 1965 at about 3.00 p.m.

Re. 5(b) Tan Hai Tong, 6th April, 1965 at about 11.00 a.m.

These witnesses gave their evidence reasonably well despite lengthy cross-examination out of which they emerged with flying colours and I accept them as witnesses of truth. I am quite sati