Ticking off point for point, SPH lawyer gets NKF chief to retract suit

BY 4PM yesterday, it was clear that Senior Counsel Davinder Singh was aiming to bring his questioning of Mr T.T. Durai to a close.

The lawyer was ticking off, point for point, the arguments that the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and its chief executive had made in the defamation suit against Singapore Press Holdings.

He got Mr Durai to concede that the headline, 'The NKF: Controversially ahead of its time?' was a fair description of last year's April 19 article which is at the centre of the legal action.

Among other things, he also got Mr Durai to concede that there was nothing defamatory in the opening paragraphs which reported the reaction of a contractor who fitted gold-plated taps in the CEO's bathroom.

The taps were later 'scaled down' to a chrome-plated version.

In the minutes that followed, Mr Durai agreed that:

There was indeed a glass-panel shower cubicle in the bathroom in his private office.

That a toilet bowl which cost $1,100 was indeed 'pricey' and therefore extravagant for a charity which relies on public donations.

That a tap - whether gold-plated or otherwise - priced at $990 was expensive.

That the taps had indeed been replaced with a far cheaper version costing less than $300.

Several times, NKF patron Mrs Goh Chok Tong could be seen shaking her head and gesticulating from the back of the courtroom as Mr Durai conceded on each point.

It took far more time for Mr Durai to agree that neither he nor the NKF was being defamed when the article reported on how the taps were replaced. He argued the offending paragraphs made it look like he was being 'shamed' into replacing the fittings.

But, backed into a corner, he agreed that no one could expect that he, as CEO, would have concerned himself with toilet fittings.

The more than 40 people packed into the small courtroom held their breath when the NKF's last argument was demolished. That was at 4.50 pm.

Mr Singh then dropped the big question and asked Mr Durai if he was prepared to withdraw his claim. Mr Durai asked the judge for an adjournment, but Mr Singh objected, saying the witness was not allowed to consult his counsel in the midst of cross-examination.

Senior Counsel Michael Khoo argued that it would be all right for his client to consult him, but Mr Singh disagreed. Mr Khoo felt that if Mr Durai wanted to consult on whether to withdraw, he should be allowed to. But Mr Singh disagreed.

Mr Durai then told Justice Tan Lee Meng: 'In view of what has happened in this court, I would like to have an adjournment, talk to my colleagues.' But Mr Singh stepped in, setting off this exchange:

Davinder Singh: Your colleagues have nothing to do with this case. You are the plaintiff. You have sued personally.

In view of what has happened, would you please tell this court whether you are prepared to withdraw your action against the defendants. Please do not look at your lawyer or your colleagues.

T.T. Durai: No, I am not looking.

Davinder Singh: Just answer the question, sir.

T.T. Durai: Yes, I would withdraw.

Judge: Take your time. Take your time and think carefully before you answer this question.

Michael Khoo: Your Honour, I think that he should be given access (to counsel) before he decides on whether to withdraw. It is a question of, should I withdraw, what are the consequences?

Davinder Singh: I will be fair and tell the witness the consequences.

Michael Khoo: He (Mr Singh) is not giving advice to him (Mr Durai).

Davinder Singh: I am not, but I am explaining to the witness so that he understands,and if Mr Khoo thinks that I am misleading or I am not complete, Mr Khoo can add to it.

Michael Khoo: Your Honour, I leave it to you whether you would want him (Mr Durai) to be able to take legal advice before he gives an answer.

Judge: Yes, carry on first.

Davinder Singh: Mr Durai, I see that you are on record as saying, 'I will withdraw'?

T.T. Durai: No, I did not say that.

Davinder Singh: It is on the record. But His Honour has been fair to you, and has said, 'Please carefully consider'.

T.T. Durai: Yes.

Davinder Singh: Mr Durai, the consequences are these: If you withdraw, you will expose yourself to a claim for costs because of the withdrawal, and the defendants will be entitled, as a matter of law, to costs - unless His Honour rules otherwise.

If you do not withdraw, notwithstanding the state of play and your answers, then, to use a term used in defamation, you aggravate matters and your costs may go up to an indemnity basis. I want to be fair to you and tell you that that is how it might be played out going forward.

Having regard to the questions I have asked you and your answers, having regard to what I have told you about costs, and having regard to His Honour's very fair counsel about you thinking about it, please tell us what your answer is.

T.T. Durai: Your Honour, I will withdraw this claim.

Davinder Singh: Thank you very much.

Judge (to Mr Khoo): Do you have anything to say?

Michael Khoo: Nothing, because it is a statement made by him in the witness box.

Davinder Singh: Would you also withdraw the claim by NKF?

T.T. Durai: Yes.

-- bertha@sph.com.sg


STI Home > Singapore > Story > Print	>> Back to the article


July 13, 2005 Ticking off point for point, SPH lawyer gets NKF chief to retract suit Action withdrawn after CEO concedes that article did not defame him or NKF BY 4PM yesterday, it was clear that Senior Counsel Davinder Singh was aiming to bring his questioning of Mr T.T. Durai to a close. The lawyer was ticking off, point for point, the arguments that the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and its chief executive had made in the defamation suit against Singapore Press Holdings. He got Mr Durai to concede that the headline, 'The NKF: Controversially ahead of its time?' was a fair description of last year's April 19 article which is at the centre of the legal action. Among other things, he also got Mr Durai to concede that there was nothing defamatory in the opening paragraphs which reported the reaction of a contractor who fitted gold-plated taps in the CEO's bathroom. The taps were later 'scaled down' to a chrome-plated version. In the minutes that followed, Mr Durai agreed that: There was indeed a glass-panel shower cubicle in the bathroom in his private office. That a toilet bowl which cost $1,100 was indeed 'pricey' and therefore extravagant for a charity which relies on public donations. That a tap - whether gold-plated or otherwise - priced at $990 was expensive. That the taps had indeed been replaced with a far cheaper version costing less than $300. Several times, NKF patron Mrs Goh Chok Tong could be seen shaking her head and gesticulating from the back of the courtroom as Mr Durai conceded on each point. It took far more time for Mr Durai to agree that neither he nor the NKF was being defamed when the article reported on how the taps were replaced. He argued the offending paragraphs made it look like he was being 'shamed' into replacing the fittings. But, backed into a corner, he agreed that no one could expect that he, as CEO, would have concerned himself with toilet fittings. The more than 40 people packed into the small courtroom held their breath when the NKF's last argument was demolished. That was at 4.50 pm. Mr Singh then dropped the big question and asked Mr Durai if he was prepared to withdraw his claim. Mr Durai asked the judge for an adjournment, but Mr Singh objected, saying the witness was not allowed to consult his counsel in the midst of cross-examination. Senior Counsel Michael Khoo argued that it would be all right for his client to consult him, but Mr Singh disagreed. Mr Khoo felt that if Mr Durai wanted to consult on whether to withdraw, he should be allowed to. But Mr Singh disagreed. Mr Durai then told Justice Tan Lee Meng: 'In view of what has happened in this court, I would like to have an adjournment, talk to my colleagues.' But Mr Singh stepped in, setting off this exchange: Davinder Singh: Your colleagues have nothing to do with this case. You are the plaintiff. You have sued personally. In view of what has happened, would you please tell this court whether you are prepared to withdraw your action against the defendants. Please do not look at your lawyer or your colleagues. T.T. Durai: No, I am not looking. Davinder Singh: Just answer the question, sir. T.T. Durai: Yes, I would withdraw. Judge: Take your time. Take your time and think carefully before you answer this question. Michael Khoo: Your Honour, I think that he should be given access (to counsel) before he decides on whether to withdraw. It is a question of, should I withdraw, what are the consequences? Davinder Singh: I will be fair and tell the witness the consequences. Michael Khoo: He (Mr Singh) is not giving advice to him (Mr Durai). Davinder Singh: I am not, but I am explaining to the witness so that he understands,and if Mr Khoo thinks that I am misleading or I am not complete, Mr Khoo can add to it. Michael Khoo: Your Honour, I leave it to you whether you would want him (Mr Durai) to be able to take legal advice before he gives an answer. Judge: Yes, carry on first. Davinder Singh: Mr Durai, I see that you are on record as saying, 'I will withdraw'? T.T. Durai: No, I did not say that. Davinder Singh: It is on the record. But His Honour has been fair to you, and has said, 'Please carefully consider'. T.T. Durai: Yes. Davinder Singh: Mr Durai, the consequences are these: If you withdraw, you will expose yourself to a claim for costs because of the withdrawal, and the defendants will be entitled, as a matter of law, to costs - unless His Honour rules otherwise. If you do not withdraw, notwithstanding the state of play and your answers, then, to use a term used in defamation, you aggravate matters and your costs may go up to an indemnity basis. I want to be fair to you and tell you that that is how it might be played out going forward. Having regard to the questions I have asked you and your answers, having regard to what I have told you about costs, and having regard to His Honour's very fair counsel about you thinking about it, please tell us what your answer is. T.T. Durai: Your Honour, I will withdraw this claim. Davinder Singh: Thank you very much. Judge (to Mr Khoo): Do you have anything to say? Michael Khoo: Nothing, because it is a statement made by him in the witness box. Davinder Singh: Would you also withdraw the claim by NKF? T.T. Durai: Yes. -- bertha@sph.com.sg Copyright © 2005 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access.