IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 121 OF 1997

IN THE MATTER OF SUIT NO. 188 OF 1997
 

Between:

1. TANG LIANG HONG
(NRIC NO. S1096110/F)
 

Appellant
 

2. TEO SIEW HAR
(NRIC NO. S0531156/Z)
 

and

 
1. TEO CHEE HEAN
(NRIC No. S0158131/G)

2. CH'NG JIT KOON
(NRIC No. S0816644/G)

3. OW CHIN HOCK
(NRIC No. S0036442/H)

4. CHIN HARN TONG
(NRIC No. S0001050/B)

5. KER SIN TZE
(NRIC No. S0398064/B)

6. SENG HAN THONG
(NRIC No. S0098408/F)
 

Respondents

 

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF CASE FOR THE APPELLANT

 

Further ground of appeal

At the hearing of the appeal the Appellant will seek leave to rely as a further ground of appeaal on the matters set out in the Supplemental Statement of Case in Civil Appeal Nos. 114, 115 and 116 of 1997 [i.e. Suits Nos. 70, 76 and 82].

The Appellant will contend that, if the learned Judge had been made aware (as he should have been made aware) of the fact that the Senior Minister, the Prime Minister had deliberately chosen for their own purposes to make public the contents of the police reports, it would have coloured his whole approach to the assessment of damages not only in the cases of the Senior and the Prime Ministers but also in the cases of the other Respondents who (it is to be inferred) colluded or at least acquiesced in the release of the police report to the media. Further or alternatively the cause of any damage suffered by the Respondents by reason of the republication of the police report was the sole responsibility of the Senior Minister and the Prime Minister and not of the Appellant.

The use to which the Respondents put the police report demonstrated that their predominant concern has throughout been to secure political advantage at the expense of the Appellant and not to protect and vindicate their reputations.



Dated this day of September, 1997


...............................................

pp Appellant