Search results
He further claims that the words were calculated to injure him in his office as leader of a political party and in aspiring to be a Member of Parliament. By this further plea the Plaintiff is in effect invoking section 5 of the Defamation Act (Cap. 32), to which I shall revert later.
- Law of Torts II
JB Jeyaretnam v GOH CHOK TONG. Course. Law of Torts II (LAW...
- Tort I
JB Jeyaretnam v GOH CHOK TONG. University: Universiti...
- Law of Torts II
1997–2001: Defamation suits from Goh Chok Tong and others Following the 1997 general election , Jeyaretnam faced nine defamation suits from 11 Cabinet ministers and Members of Parliament from the PAP for speaking up in support of Workers' Party candidate Tang Liang Hong , who himself also faced 13 defamation suits. [49]
Jb Jeyaretnam v Goh Chok Tong - [1985] 1 Mlj - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. The plaintiff, JB Jeyaretnam, attended the inauguration of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and gave a speech that was well-received.
Amnesty International today criticised the recent decision of Singapore’s Court of Appeal to uphold the appeal of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong against the S$20,000 defamation award made against opposition leader Mr J B Jeyaretnam in July 1997, and to increase the award to S$100.000, plus full costs. “The court’s decision is a further step ...
JB Jeyaretnam v GOH CHOK TONG. Course. Law of Torts II (LAW 1511) 38Documents. Students shared 38 documents in this course. University. International Islamic University Malaysia. Academic year:2021/2022. Uploaded by: Anonymous Student. This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
JB Jeyaretnam v GOH CHOK TONG. University: Universiti Malaya. Course:Tort I (LIA 1004) 228Documents. Students shared 228 documents in this course. Info More info. Download. Recommended for you. Document continues below. 38.
Aug 22, 2001 · On 17 July 1998, the Court handed down its judgment, allowing Mr Goh’s appeal and dismissing the appellant’s cross-appeal: see Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin [1998] 3 SLR 337. The Court, among other things, varied the meaning of the defamatory words as determined by Rajendran J.
