Blog

If you invite someone into your home or someone trespasses into your house or your legal tenant to your property gets injured on the premises, are you liable to them?

The law that applies in this area is often referred to as “Occupier’s Liability”. We unpack in this article, the extent of your liability as an owner or someone who has control over the premises and the power to say who gets to enter or exit the premises.

The Law

In Singapore, the Court of Appeal has made it clear in See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd and others [2013] 3 SLR 284 (“Toh”) that the law does not distinguish between an invitee, licensee or trespasser, as opposed to owing invitees the highest duty, followed by licensees and then trespassers. Instead, the framework for liability under negligence in tort law which was laid down in Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 applies. This would be a more coherent rout to resolving many of the existing classificatory problems in the law on occupier’s liability. The formalistic, confusing and complex distinctions between invitees, licensees and trespassers would simply be rendered otiose in the light of a general overarching principle.

This means that the Court would simply decide the matter based on factual and legal proximity between the occupier and the party who had suffered injury and policy considerations whether they were against or for imposing a duty of care.

In Toh, the Court was of the view that there was undoubtedly physical proximity between an occupier and an entrant because the entrant was physically situated on the occupier’s property.

Lawful entrants

Insofar as lawful entrants were concerned, circumstantial proximity is present because the occupier had consented to the lawful entrant’s presence on an occupier’s premises. Therefore, the vast majority of occupiers who have control of the property which they occupy and/or the activities carried out there, owe a prima facie duty of care to lawful entrants.

However, the Court also caveated that occupiers were not to be viewed as insurers for the safety of their property and their duty was merely to exercise reasonable care.

Unlawful entrants

What about trespassers who do not have any legal right or justification to be on an occupier’s premises?

The Court in Toh was of the view that it was impossible to hold that occupiers owe a blanket duty of care to all trespassers. Whether or not a prima facie duty of care arose would depend on all the circumstances of the case. Culpability on the part of the entrant is key.

At the end of the day, the objective of the tort of negligence is to render interpersonal justice and to remedy wrongs. So, the Court would have due regard to policy considerations against imposing a duty of care.

Whether you have suffered injury on a property or are the occupier and owner of a property where an accident had happened, our firm can assist you.

This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice. It is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking any action(s) based on this publication. We shall not be responsible for, nor do we accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance on this publication.

Making a statement that harms someone’s reputation can have serious legal consequences – this is known as defamation.

However, not every negative statement will attract liability. The law provides several key defences for individuals who find themselves accused of defamation. These defences aim to balance the protection of a person’s reputation with the importance of free speech and open communication.

Three of the most common defences to a defamation claim are justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege.

Justification (The “Truth” Defence)

The most straightforward defence to defamation is justification, which essentially means proving that the defamatory statement is true. If you can demonstrate that the “substance or gist” of what you said is factually correct, this defence applies, even if minor details are inaccurate.

However, the burden of proof is entirely on the person who made the statement (the defendant). It’s not enough to simply believe something is true. You must be able to prove it in court with evidence.

This defence failed in the case of Foo Diana v Woo Mui Chan [2025] 4 SLR 95 (“Foo Diana”). In this case, the defendant posted a public review on the Law Society of Singapore’s Google page claiming a lawyer, Ms Foo, had forced her to “do illegal deals”.

To use the defence of justification, the defendant needed to prove three things:

1. The deals were, in fact, illegal.
2. The lawyer knew that the said deals were illegal.
3. The lawyer forced the defendant to participate in the said deals.

The Court found that the defendant had failed to prove all three things. She could not provide evidence that the deals were illegal and even admitted during cross-examination that one of them was not. As the defendant could not prove the truth of these allegations, her defence of justification failed, and she was found liable for defamation.

Fair Comment (The “Opinion” Defence)

This defence protects the expression of opinions, not the assertion of facts. To succeed with a defence of fair comment, four elements must be established:

1. The statement is a comment: The statement must be recognisable as an opinion, deduction, or criticism, rather than a statement of fact.
2. The statement concerns a matter of public interest: The topic must be something the public has a legitimate interest in.
3. The statement is based on facts: The opinion must be based on a “sufficient substratum of facts” that are either stated or implied and are themselves true.
4. The statement is honest: The comment must be one that a fair-minded person could honestly make based on those facts.

The test for distinguishing between a fact and a comment is objective: would an ordinary, reasonable reader understand the words to be the expression of an opinion or a statement of fact? If the line is blurry and the reasonable reader may have a difficult time distinguishing whether the words are an opinion or a statement of fact, the defence is likely to fail.

In the case of Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien Loong [2010] 1 SLR 52, an article questioned Singapore’s reputation of having a “squeaky-clean government” by drawing parallels between the government’s management of public funds and a scandal at the National Kidney Foundation (NKF). The article ended with rhetorical questions like, “How many other libel suits have Singapore’s great and good wrongly won, resulting in the cover-up of real misdeeds?”.

The publisher argued these were expressions of opinion, and thus the defence of fair comment ought to apply. However, the Court disagreed, finding that the statements, including the questions, would be understood by a reasonable reader as assertions of fact. The reasonable reader would understand these statements as assertions that government officials were corrupt and were using their defamation suits to hide their wrongdoing.

Furthermore, the Court found that, even if the statements were comments, they were not based on facts that could warrant such a serious imputation. The Court advised that writers can help characterise their words as comments by using phrases like “it seems to me” or “in my judgment” to make the distinction clear.

Qualified Privilege (The “Duty and Interest” Defence)

Qualified privilege protects statements made in situations where the law recognises the need for frank and uninhibited communication for the “common convenience and welfare of society”.

This defence applies when the person making the statement has a legal, social, or moral duty or interest to communicate the information, and the recipient has a corresponding duty or interest to receive it. For example, this defence may apply to an employer making an employment reference, or to someone reporting a suspected crime to the police.

In Foo Diana, the defendant lodged a formal written complaint against the plaintiff, who was a lawyer, with the Law Society of Singapore (LSS), alleging professional misconduct. The Court held that this communication was protected by qualified privilege. The defendant, as a member of the public and as a purported client of the plaintiff, had an interest in reporting the alleged misconduct. The LSS, as the regulatory body for lawyers, also had a corresponding duty and interest to receive and investigate such complaints.

However, this defence is called qualified privilege because the existence of such privilege can be defeated if the person making the statement was motivated by malice. In other words, even if a communication is protected by qualified privilege, if it is made with malice, the defence no longer applies.

Malice can be proven if the defendant:

• Knew the statement was false or was reckless as to its truth.
• Was driven by an improper motive, such as a desire to injure the plaintiff.

In the Foo Diana case, despite the communication being privileged, the defence ultimately failed because the Court found the defendant acted with malice. Given the bitter history between the parties over unpaid debts, and the fact that the defendant had made allegations she could not have honestly believed to be true (she had made claims of unwanted sexual advances from the plaintiff, which were contradicted by affectionate text messages she herself had sent), the Court concluded that the defendant’s complaint was not a genuine grievance but an act of retaliation intended to harm the plaintiff’s career.

The defences to defamation serve as a crucial mechanism for balancing the protection of an individual’s reputation against the safeguarding of freedom of expression. However, the success of these defences is highly contingent on the specific facts of each case, turning on core principles of truth, honest opinion, good faith, and the absence of malice.

If you believe you have been defamed, or have been accused of defamation yourself, our firm can assist you.

This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice. It is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking any action(s) based on this publication. We shall not be responsible for, nor do we accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance on this publication.

In our daily interactions, reputation is invaluable. It influences how we are seen by others in our personal and professional lives. The law recognizes the importance of protecting one’s reputation through the concept of defamation, which addresses harm caused by false and damaging statements.

What is Defamation?

At its core, defamation is the act of making or publishing a false statement about someone that harms their reputation. This need not be a direct, outright accusation – it can be done through various means.

Defamation occurs when someone, through words (either spoken or written), signs, or visual representations, makes or publishes an accusation about another person.

What does it mean to “harm one’s reputation”?

A statement is considered harmful if, in the eyes of others, it:

• Lowers a person’s moral or intellectual character.
• Damages a person’s character in relation to their job or profession.
• Causes people to believe that a person’s body is in a loathsome or disgraceful state.

Defamation applies not only to living individuals, but also to companies, associations, and even deceased persons if the statement is intended to hurt the feelings of their family.

A defamatory statement can be made in writing, on electronic platforms, or in other media. It can even be conveyed ironically or as a hypothetical alternative. For example, sarcastically saying, “Z is an honest man; he would never steal ” with the intention of making people believe Z  is actually a dishonest man, and would actually commit theft, is a form of defamation. Similarly, simply pointing at someone when asked who committed a theft, or drawing a picture of them doing so, can also be defamatory.

The Three Key Elements of a Defamation Claim

For a person to successfully bring a defamation claim, three elements must be made out. First, the statement complained of must be defamatory in nature. Second, the statement must refer to the complainant. Third, the statement must be published.

1. The Statement Must Be Defamatory in Nature

A statement is considered defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of “right-thinking members of society generally,” cause them to be shunned or avoided, or expose them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.

When determining the meaning of a statement, the Court will not simply look at the literal words used. Rather, Courts look at the “natural and ordinary meaning” of the statement, which includes any reasonable inferences an ordinary person would draw from the words. This is an objective test – it is not about what the publisher intended to say, or what the person claiming defamation understood. The question is what a reasonable person, using general knowledge and common sense, would understand the words to mean. This hypothetical reasonable reader is able to “read between the lines” and is not naive but also not overly suspicious.

The Court will also consider the implied or inferred meaning of a statement, not just the dictionary definition of the words used.

For example, in Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien Loong [2009] SGCA 46, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore at the time, and Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Minister Mentor at the time, sued Review Publishing Co Ltd (“Review Publishing”) and its editor on a defamatory article which was published in the Far Eastern Economic Review in 2006.

The article in question contained several paragraphs that, when read together, were found to be defamatory. First, the article quoted an opposition politician’s theory that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had “skeletons in his closet”. The article proceeded to detail a scandal involving the National Kidney Foundation (“NKF”) and its CEO, T.T. Durai, focusing on financial impropriety (“the NKF scandal”).

Although the article did not contain an outright accusation of financial impropriety, the Court found that at the time of publication, the general public was already aware that the NKF scandal was about “grave financial impropriety, abuse of power and/or dishonest practices,” which fall “readily within the ambit of corruption”.

When the theory of “skeletons” in Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s closet was read with the NKF scandal, the article clearly imputed that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was corrupt. This allegation would lower Mr Lee Kuan Yew in the estimation of right-thinking members of society and was therefore defamatory in nature.

2. The Statement Must Refer to the Complainant

The complainant who alleges defamation must prove that the defamatory statement was about them. Importantly, the statement need not mention the complainant by name. The key test is whether an ordinary, reasonable person with knowledge of the circumstances would understand that the statement was referring to the complainant.

For instance, in the Review Publishing case, the defamatory portions of the article used broad terms such as “the government“, “Singaporean officials“, and “Singapore’s great and good“. Review Publishing argued these terms did not specifically refer to the complainants.

However, the court rejected this argument by looking at the context of the entire article.

With regards to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the article explicitly identified him as the “strongman Lee Kuan Yew” (in other sections of the article that were not defamatory) and stated that many believed he “still runs Singapore“. Given this context, the Court concluded that a reasonable reader would understand that references to “the government” were referable to Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Furthermore, Review Publishing’s own counsel conceded that the phrase “Singaporean officials” would be understood by an ordinary person to refer to Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Although Mr Lee Hsien Loong was not explicitly named in the most damaging paragraphs, he was explicitly named elsewhere in the article as the “Prime Minister“. Crucially, a key defamatory section referred to Mr Lee Kuan Yew having “skeletons in his closet” and stated that “when he is gone, his son… will have a price to pay“. The Court reasoned that the ordinary reasonable person would know that Mr Lee Hsien Loong is Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s only son serving in the Government. Thus, the direct reference to “his son” in a defamatory context was sufficient to identify Mr Lee Hsien Loong as a subject of the defamatory claims.

3. The Statement Must Be Published

“Publication” in the legal sense simply means that the statement was communicated to at least one other person besides the complainant. This is a crucial element because defamation is about harm to reputation in the eyes of others.

For example, in the case of Foo Diana v Woo Mui Chan [2025] SGHC 54, the Defendant published the following public review on the Google page of the Law Society of Singapore: “I was being bullied by a lady lawyer, Name Diana Foo from Tan See Swan & Co.”  The only interactions that the Google review received was a single ‘thumbs up’ reaction as well as a comment from one ‘Yew Woo’ that stated ‘go report her lah’.

However, this interaction was sufficient to prove that the statement was communicated to and read by someone other than the complainant and the defendant. Thus, the legal requirement of publication was satisfied.

Remedies for Defamation

When a defamation claim is successful, the primary remedy is an award of damages, which is intended to be compensatory. The court may award several types of damages.

1. General damages are presumed to be the natural and probable consequence of the defamatory statement. This serves three main purposes: to repair the injury to the complainant’s reputation, to vindicate the complainant’s name, and to provide consolation for hurt feelings. In determining the quantum of general damages, the court considers several factors, including the nature and gravity of the defamation, the position and standing of both the plaintiff and defendant, and the mode and extent of the publication.
2. Special damages cover losses that are not presumed and arise from the specific circumstances of the case, such as a loss of earnings, business, or clientele. Such claims must be specifically pleaded and proven with evidence.
3. In addition to monetary compensation, the complainant may also seek an injunction to restrain the defendant from repeating or further publishing the defamatory allegations. However, an injunction may be declined if the defendant has already removed the statement and is deemed unlikely to repeat the defamation in the future.

Defamation can have serious consequences for both individuals and businesses, affecting reputation, livelihood, and trust.

If you believe you have been defamed, or if you are facing a defamation claim, our lawyers are able to advise you on your rights and options.

This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice. It is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking any action(s) based on this publication. We shall not be responsible for, nor do we accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance on this publication.

Do you intend to become a guarantor? Are you considering asking a party to guarantee debts owed to you, whether for business or personal reasons? In these situations, there are many factors to take into account and knowing your rights and the protection available to you could make the world of difference.

This article will explore considerations which may be relevant in helping you to decide whether to take on such a liability and if so, how the guarantee should be structured.

What is a Guarantee?

A guarantee is a form of undertaking by a person, called a surety, to another person, called a creditor, in relation to the debts of a third person called the debtor. It is basically a contractual obligation that captures the surety’s promise to pay the creditor if the debtor fails to do so.

Guarantees are often confused with indemnities. The difference is that guarantees are secondary obligations. In other words, the debtor must first be liable for the surety to be liable. Ifthe creditor discharges the debtor, the surety is also discharged. In contrast, a person who gave an indemnity to hold a creditor harmless is liable to do so regardless.

A corollary to this, is that by executing the guarantee, a surety agrees to take on the liability of the debtor. Since guarantees are typically drafted such that the surety and debtor are both jointly and severally liable, a surety must be prepared that the creditor may seek repayment from him without first resorting to seeking repayment from the debtor.

A guarantee can also be marked as “joint and severable”. This typically occurs where there is more than one surety. Each surety is jointly liable together with the rest of the sureties as well as individually liable to the creditor for full repayment of the debtor’s debt. Similarly, the creditor can seek repayment without first resorting to seeking repayment from the debtor and additionally, can seek repayment from one or all of the sureties.

A guarantee is typically sought by a creditor who wants more security or assurance that the debts owed by the debtor will be paid. For example, if the debtor is a private limited company who seeks to borrow money, a bank will typically ask for a real person to be a guarantor, typically a director or the majority shareholder of the company, so that these persons would not be able to use the company’s status as a separate legal personality as a shield.

Formality Requirements

Since guarantees are basically contracts, they must be supported by consideration. Alternatively, the guarantee can be executed under seal as a deed.

It should also be noted that section 6(b) of the Civil Law Act 1909 applies to guarantees – a guarantee must be in writing and signed by the surety or his representative. This means that an oral guarantee is unenforceable.

When am I Discharged under a Guarantee?

A surety may be discharged for a wide number of reasons.

First and the most common, a surety may be discharged if the debtor performs his obligation, such as by making payment to the creditor.

Sometimes, a creditor may himself discharge the surety. For example, a creditor may vary the terms of the guarantee, turning it into something which the surety did not agree to. Creditors may at times also give the debtor additional time to pay and this also discharges the surety.

Lastly, a surety may be discharged if the guarantee is voided. A guarantee is voidable due to vitiating factors such as unconscionability, illegality, misrepresentation or undue influence. If such factors were present when the surety was coerced into executing the guarantee, then the surety can choose to void the guarantee.

What would happen to me as a surety if the Creditor sues me?

In circumstances where there is no dispute that the surety is liable under the Guarantee, a creditor may send a statutory demand and make a bankruptcy application if the debt is more than $15,000. If you are unable to pay and are made a bankrupt, it would have cascading consequences such as affecting your ability to leave Singapore, be a director of a company, ability to take loans or make purchases and even cause you to be in breach of various contracts you may have already entered into, such as banking or credit facilities.

In other circumstances where the surety disputes his liability, a creditor may first need to file a claim against the surety. A judgment against the surety would need to be obtained, following which the creditor would have the choice of taking up enforcement proceedings if the creditor is aware that the surety has assets to enforce against, or apply for examination of judgment respondent proceedings to find out what assets the surety has.

A surety who has been sued by a creditor can in turn sue the debtor. However, as covered above, there may be many good reasons why the creditor had decided to pursue the surety instead of the debtor and these may also constitute good reasons why pursuing the debtor would not be fruitful.

Conclusion

If you are entering into a guarantee whether as surety, creditor or debtor, our team is here to provide the expertise and support needed to navigate this difficult time and help you secure the protection you deserve.

This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice. It is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking any action(s) based on this publication. We shall not be responsible for, nor do we accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance on this publication.