ok, i’ve just browsed through the statement of claim.

like, hello, why are there such unnecessary things in there?

why is there ‘background’, which basically says that the claimants have had great successes in bringing defamation claims against other people? what purpose does this serve to show and/or support the proposition that the words found in the publication are in fact libellous and defamatory? seriously now. save the earth and stop wasting paper and ink on these irrelevant paragraphs.

And, what’s up with all the NKF stuff? Yeah, so it’s somehow relevant, but not so relevant that you spend a page detailing what exactly went on.

And also, the supposedly libellous article merely said that there was a NKF scandal, and that it raises questions of how the government uses the money that we ‘deposit’ with them. FAIR COMMENT. I asked myself that very question when the NKF issue arose, and it was directed at the government itself and not anyone in particular.

anyway, does it refer to the claimants? maybe. Did it defame them? i don’t think so. like i said before, FEER didn’t actually categorically state that these people are corrupt. yes they were pointed questions, but it was up to the reader to make up their own mind about it.

these people (D&N, LHL, LKY, et al) make me tired. and incredulous.

it’s so boring. i mean, if you wanted to defame them, at least make it saucy and say they like going to nightclubs and have affairs and that they have bastard children everywhere. or that they use our CPF money to build villas in the canary islands, or that they don’t pay any tax at all because all their money goes to off-shore accounts in tax havens. stuff like that. it makes it so much more entertaining.

this whole ‘you are trying to say that i am a corrupt official so i’m going to sue you because i am too big and powerful to bother to explain to you how incorrupt i actually am’ is just too boring.

*UPDATE*

Check this out: Libel Law Overhauled in Landmark UK Ruling

Basically, if it is in the public interest and there has been responsible journalism (i.e. not wildly inaccurate and completely facetious/nonsensical statements), then libel claims cannot be brought against the publishers and/or writers.

“The key test was whether a media organisation or newspaper acted fairly and responsibly in gathering and publishing the information, the judges said.

If the reporter and editor did so, and the information was of public importance, then the fact that it contained relevant but defamatory allegations against prominent people would not permit them to recover libel damages.”

I’ve just read through the correspondence between FEER and Drew & Napier.

As a law student who has just gone through several classes of legal writing, I must comment that the language used in the Drew & Napier letters is… well… not as nice as it could be. I’m not saying that the content ought to be nicer, it could be downright nasty for all i care, but the manipulation of the language was unsatisfactory. More elegance and class, please!

I mean, why use the words ‘cynically profit’? Why put a moralistic twist to the issue when speaking to FEER’s legal counsel? Do you really think he will feel threatened by moralistic overtones? He’s a solicitor for god’s sake. Logic, not morality.

Also, the constant jumping between ‘defamation’ and ‘libel’. Is it one, or the other? They do mean different things in law, with defamation being the broader tort and libel being the narrower (limited to written and published works).

But perhaps I’m just nit-picking.

Another thing that really gets to me - jurisdiction.

I’m not terribly clear about the rules in Singapore and/or Hong Kong, but I do know the UK/EU ones (because we’ve just gone through them in Civil Litigation, hurrah!). So here’s what i think:

If the libel is published in Hong Kong, then the injury would technically have occurred in Hong Kong. The main domicile of FEER is also Hong Kong since that’s where its offices are and where it is published, or New York since its holding company is there.

So, the correct jurisdiction would be in Hong Kong, unless FEER has instructed solicitors to accept service of legal claims in singapore, or has responded in Singapore to the claim. They are under no obligation at all to respond or to appoint solicitors in Singapore, so D&N will either have to serve it outside the jurisdiction (requiring the permission of the courts) or wait for FEER to do something in Singapore. But now that the claims have been issued, the staff of FEER are probably going to avoid Singapore like the plague, so no chance of personal service there.

And D&N can’t get a judgment in default if they never even served the damn thing.

Interesting, eh?

From the correspondence, it seems that D&N are rather used to having their letters scare the pants off the other side’s solicitors. And they’re not afraid of being condescending towards the other side’s solicitors either, although they do so object to them being condescending to their clients. wankers.

In my opinion, FEER could just stand back and do absolutely nothing. They could prepare their defences and all that, just in case, but doing nothing would mean that D&N would have to work like dogs to get the claims served in Hong Kong. And even then, FEER could dispute the jurisdiction, and have the claims moved to Hong Kong - which D&N would probably hate.

Anyway, all this is assuming that there is a valid claim (which i suspect might not be the case). Assuming that there isn’t a claim because the judge in the matter is completely unbiased and uninfluenced by the men bringing the claim thinks there isn’t, then there really isn’t anything more to talk about is there?

Apart from costs, that is.