Sammyboy RSS Feed
13-01-2015, 08:40 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
As reported (‘Court orders Roy Ngerng to pay $29,000 legal costs‘), blogger Roy Ngerng, who was found to have defamed PM Lee in a summary judgment last November, was ordered to pay Mr Lee $29,000 by the court for Mr Lee’s legal fees and related expenses yesterday (12 Jan).
Mr Lee filed the defamation suit in his personal capacity against Roy in May last year. The suit arose from a blog post by Roy, which alleged that CPF monies had been misappropriated by PM Lee.
In November, a judge ruled that Roy had defamed Mr Lee with his posts. He was ordered to be restrained from publishing or disseminating the allegation that Mr Lee is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF, or any words and/or images to the same effect.
Yesterday’s hearing was about determining how much Roy need to pay Mr Lee’s legal expenses and to fix a hearing date on how much total damages Roy need to pay Mr Lee.
At the start of the hearing yesterday, PM’s lawyer actually wanted Roy to pay Mr Lee’s total legal costs of $49,027.61. This sum included the some $9,000 court filing fees. Hence, Mr Lee was asking for some $40,000 to cover his lawyer’s own fees.
However, the range of legal fees to pay for summary judgment cases in High Court is usually only between $5,000 to $15,000. Roy’s lawyers wanted to settle for $13,000.
But Mr Lee wanted Roy to pay his lawyers for “additional” work done and “indemnity”. His lawyer, Davinder Singh, argued that they did “additional” work because they had to research where the infringing article was republished on the Internet. They also needed to prove that people had downloaded and accessed the article widely, so that they could show the extent of damage inflicted on Mr Lee.
Mr Singh also said that Roy had made the matter “unnecessarily complicated” because he said that Roy knew he was wrong but Roy made the PM prove that he wasn’t. Hence, the additional work that Mr Singh and his colleagues had to do.
Some of the “additional” work Mr Lee’s lawyers mentioned
Mr Singh argued that “additional” work was needed to apply for an injunction to stop Roy from talking about CPF. As Roy was not willing to accept the injunction, Mr Singh and his lawyers had to do “additional” work to prove that Roy should be given an injunction.
Roy’s lawyers reminded the court that the injunction had said that “the court must bear in mind that the injunction should be carefully worded and sufficiently circumscribed such that it would not overreach and thereby infringe upon the right to freedom of speech or have a chilling effect”.
Roy’s lawyers wanted to “make it clear that (Roy) remains free to exercise (his) rights to freedom of speech under Art 14 of the Constitution, save for the repetition of the allegation that has been found to be defamatory in these proceedings”.
As such, Roy “should be able to make statements of the prime minister and the ruling party (PAP) so long as (he does) not break any written law”.
In subsequent articles written by Roy following the lawsuit, Roy merely questioned about the lack of transparency on how Singaporeans’ CPF is being managed, and of the MAS, GIC and Temasek Holdings. Roy did not say anything defamatory or against the law in those later articles.
At the hearing, Mr Singh also referred to an article where Roy had said that “I am disappointed with the prime minister”.
“We have lived in fear for too long.”
“This is not morally right (to sue an ordinary citizen),” Roy had also said.
Mr Singh said Roy was “attacking” the PM but Roy’s lawyers refuted this and said that Roy was merely “pouring his heart out”.
Roy had also talked about how he was made to lose his job and most importantly, continued to talk about the CPF.
Mr Singh said Roy was intending to “destroy” the PM.
Roy’s lawyers countered that Roy has always commented on public matters because these are matters of public concern.
In another instance, Mr Singh argued that Roy kept “shifting” the “meaning” of his articles and changing his position. Hence, the need for additional work to be done.
However, Roy’s lawyers explained that his argument has always been consistent, that “there is no transparency in the manner which CPF monies were invested by the Government, MAS, Temasek Holdings and/or GIC” and that, “the legal retention of profits derived from the investing of CPF monies by GIC and Temasek, by the Government is simply not fair to Singaporeans”.
On the issue of indemnity, Roy’s lawyers argued that an indemnity can only be asked when one has been dishonest or runs a frivolous defence. Roy has done neither.
In conclusion, Roy’s lead lawyer, M Ravi, argued that the summary judgment last year was not a “complicated” hearing. The court arguments were quite “straightforward”.
“If (Davinder) was doing too much work (for it), it should not be (my) problem,” Ravi said.
After considering both sides of the arguments, Judge Lee Seiu Kin ruled that there is no reason for indemnity. He also said that there is no reason to depart from the usual scale for legal fees (of between $5,000 to $15,000). However, he said that the costs should be at the higher end of the scale.
As such, Roy was asked to pay $20,000 to the PM’s lawyers, and an additional $9,000 for filing fees, for a total of $29,000.
PM Lee and Roy to be cross examined
Then there was the setting of dates to decide how much actual damages to pay Mr Lee.
Last year, Mr Lee had wanted to have a closed-door hearing but Roy’s lawyers managed to have it held in an open court.
Mr Singh wanted a 1-day hearing but Roy’s lawyers argued for 3. The judge then said he will decide on the number of days of hearing on 23 Feb.
It is expected that both Mr Lee and Roy will be cross examined by lawyers from both sides so as to help determine the amount of damages to be paid to Mr Lee.
Initially, the court said in a letter that it is only available from July to August.
However, Mr Singh said that he has other trials from July to September and wanted to change the dates for the trial.
He wanted to move it earlier to May.
Mr Ravi explained that he has hearings in May and would not be able to do so.
The court then suggested holding the hearing between 10 and 16 October.
Mr Singh then suggested holding the hearing in two separate parts. However, Mr Ravi rejected this as he does not want the PM to be able to have time to do his “homework”.
In the end, the court said that it could have some dates available at the end of June and will inform both sides of the dates again.
For High Court defamation cases, damages are expected to exceed $250,000.
In any case, Roy reporters at the end of yesterday’s three-hour closed-door hearing...http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/01/13...-fees-by-half/ (http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/01/13/judge-slashes-pm-lees-lawyer-fees-by-half/)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?197908-Judge-slashes-PM-Lee’s-lawyer-fees-by-half&goto=newpost).
As reported (‘Court orders Roy Ngerng to pay $29,000 legal costs‘), blogger Roy Ngerng, who was found to have defamed PM Lee in a summary judgment last November, was ordered to pay Mr Lee $29,000 by the court for Mr Lee’s legal fees and related expenses yesterday (12 Jan).
Mr Lee filed the defamation suit in his personal capacity against Roy in May last year. The suit arose from a blog post by Roy, which alleged that CPF monies had been misappropriated by PM Lee.
In November, a judge ruled that Roy had defamed Mr Lee with his posts. He was ordered to be restrained from publishing or disseminating the allegation that Mr Lee is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF, or any words and/or images to the same effect.
Yesterday’s hearing was about determining how much Roy need to pay Mr Lee’s legal expenses and to fix a hearing date on how much total damages Roy need to pay Mr Lee.
At the start of the hearing yesterday, PM’s lawyer actually wanted Roy to pay Mr Lee’s total legal costs of $49,027.61. This sum included the some $9,000 court filing fees. Hence, Mr Lee was asking for some $40,000 to cover his lawyer’s own fees.
However, the range of legal fees to pay for summary judgment cases in High Court is usually only between $5,000 to $15,000. Roy’s lawyers wanted to settle for $13,000.
But Mr Lee wanted Roy to pay his lawyers for “additional” work done and “indemnity”. His lawyer, Davinder Singh, argued that they did “additional” work because they had to research where the infringing article was republished on the Internet. They also needed to prove that people had downloaded and accessed the article widely, so that they could show the extent of damage inflicted on Mr Lee.
Mr Singh also said that Roy had made the matter “unnecessarily complicated” because he said that Roy knew he was wrong but Roy made the PM prove that he wasn’t. Hence, the additional work that Mr Singh and his colleagues had to do.
Some of the “additional” work Mr Lee’s lawyers mentioned
Mr Singh argued that “additional” work was needed to apply for an injunction to stop Roy from talking about CPF. As Roy was not willing to accept the injunction, Mr Singh and his lawyers had to do “additional” work to prove that Roy should be given an injunction.
Roy’s lawyers reminded the court that the injunction had said that “the court must bear in mind that the injunction should be carefully worded and sufficiently circumscribed such that it would not overreach and thereby infringe upon the right to freedom of speech or have a chilling effect”.
Roy’s lawyers wanted to “make it clear that (Roy) remains free to exercise (his) rights to freedom of speech under Art 14 of the Constitution, save for the repetition of the allegation that has been found to be defamatory in these proceedings”.
As such, Roy “should be able to make statements of the prime minister and the ruling party (PAP) so long as (he does) not break any written law”.
In subsequent articles written by Roy following the lawsuit, Roy merely questioned about the lack of transparency on how Singaporeans’ CPF is being managed, and of the MAS, GIC and Temasek Holdings. Roy did not say anything defamatory or against the law in those later articles.
At the hearing, Mr Singh also referred to an article where Roy had said that “I am disappointed with the prime minister”.
“We have lived in fear for too long.”
“This is not morally right (to sue an ordinary citizen),” Roy had also said.
Mr Singh said Roy was “attacking” the PM but Roy’s lawyers refuted this and said that Roy was merely “pouring his heart out”.
Roy had also talked about how he was made to lose his job and most importantly, continued to talk about the CPF.
Mr Singh said Roy was intending to “destroy” the PM.
Roy’s lawyers countered that Roy has always commented on public matters because these are matters of public concern.
In another instance, Mr Singh argued that Roy kept “shifting” the “meaning” of his articles and changing his position. Hence, the need for additional work to be done.
However, Roy’s lawyers explained that his argument has always been consistent, that “there is no transparency in the manner which CPF monies were invested by the Government, MAS, Temasek Holdings and/or GIC” and that, “the legal retention of profits derived from the investing of CPF monies by GIC and Temasek, by the Government is simply not fair to Singaporeans”.
On the issue of indemnity, Roy’s lawyers argued that an indemnity can only be asked when one has been dishonest or runs a frivolous defence. Roy has done neither.
In conclusion, Roy’s lead lawyer, M Ravi, argued that the summary judgment last year was not a “complicated” hearing. The court arguments were quite “straightforward”.
“If (Davinder) was doing too much work (for it), it should not be (my) problem,” Ravi said.
After considering both sides of the arguments, Judge Lee Seiu Kin ruled that there is no reason for indemnity. He also said that there is no reason to depart from the usual scale for legal fees (of between $5,000 to $15,000). However, he said that the costs should be at the higher end of the scale.
As such, Roy was asked to pay $20,000 to the PM’s lawyers, and an additional $9,000 for filing fees, for a total of $29,000.
PM Lee and Roy to be cross examined
Then there was the setting of dates to decide how much actual damages to pay Mr Lee.
Last year, Mr Lee had wanted to have a closed-door hearing but Roy’s lawyers managed to have it held in an open court.
Mr Singh wanted a 1-day hearing but Roy’s lawyers argued for 3. The judge then said he will decide on the number of days of hearing on 23 Feb.
It is expected that both Mr Lee and Roy will be cross examined by lawyers from both sides so as to help determine the amount of damages to be paid to Mr Lee.
Initially, the court said in a letter that it is only available from July to August.
However, Mr Singh said that he has other trials from July to September and wanted to change the dates for the trial.
He wanted to move it earlier to May.
Mr Ravi explained that he has hearings in May and would not be able to do so.
The court then suggested holding the hearing between 10 and 16 October.
Mr Singh then suggested holding the hearing in two separate parts. However, Mr Ravi rejected this as he does not want the PM to be able to have time to do his “homework”.
In the end, the court said that it could have some dates available at the end of June and will inform both sides of the dates again.
For High Court defamation cases, damages are expected to exceed $250,000.
In any case, Roy reporters at the end of yesterday’s three-hour closed-door hearing...http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/01/13...-fees-by-half/ (http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/01/13/judge-slashes-pm-lees-lawyer-fees-by-half/)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?197908-Judge-slashes-PM-Lee’s-lawyer-fees-by-half&goto=newpost).