Court to hear defamation case between Certis Cisco and ex-actress
File photo
SINGAPORE — Nearly three years after legal action was started, a defamation hearing between security vendor Certis Cisco and former actress Ho Seng Mui will kick off in a district court tomorrow.
The suit revolves around an interview Ms Ho had granted Chinese-language daily Lianhe Wanbao in July 2013. She alleged that her diamond jewellery had been stolen from her safe-deposit box at an unnamed security company and that only a pearl necklace, a gold medal and a piece of jade remained.
The newspaper report also stated that Ms Ho had been storing her valuables “at a local security company in Singapore since Sept 11, 1990”.
Taking issue with the article, Certis Cisco said it was the only local security company providing safe-deposit box facilities since 1990, and claimed that readers would have connected the dots to the firm.
A month after the report was published, the company sent a letter of demand to Ms Ho, requesting, among other things, an apology in the newspapers. She did not respond, even after a second letter was sent to her. Certis Cisco, represented by law firm Drew and Napier, launched legal proceedings in December 2013 and served Ms Ho with a legal notice a month later.
The company wanted damages for libel, arguing that the article implied that Certis Cisco had stolen her valuables or allowed them to be pilfered, or that its safe-deposit boxes were unsafe.
According to court documents obtained by TODAY, Ms Ho had checked her safe-deposit box on Aug 21, 2012, after reading a spate of newspaper articles on the loss of items stored in safe-deposit boxes.
After discovering that some items were missing from her safe-deposit box, she made a police report in the same month.
In June 2013, Ms Ho received a letter from Bedok Police Division, stating that “investigations thus far did not reveal any evidence to conclude that theft had been committed ... the police will be taking no further action into the matter”.
In her defence, Ms Ho, who is now based in Hong Kong, argued that she had gone to the press “in the hopes of obtaining ... leads or further information surrounding other cases of lost items that she read of in the news”.
She maintained that while speaking to the reporter, she had recounted her personal experience of losing items. However, she made it clear that she did not want her comments to be published.
“These instructions were contravened without (her) consent,” said her lawyers from Peter Low LLC. “She had no control whatsoever over the publication of the article.”
In the court documents, Ms Ho’s lawyers also argued that Certis Cisco did “not adequately perform its role in safeguarding the valuables in its facility by allowing them to be stolen”, and had unsafe safe-deposit box facilities.
“(Certis Cisco) provided minimal updates or personal assistance to (her),” said her lawyers.
“In addition, (Ms Ho) has spent an inordinate amount of time in contact with the police, attending multiple meet-the-people sessions to compel (Certis Cisco) and the police to take further action, consolidating personal records and evidence, among other things.”
To date, Ms Ho maintained that her valuables have not been recovered. On its part, Certis Cisco stressed that the company “strictly controlled” access to its safe-deposit boxes and kept records of all attempts to open them.
According to court documents, the company said there was no evidence that “any of (Ms Ho’s) valuables alleged to have been stolen from her safe deposit box was put by (Ms Ho) into her safe-deposit box in the first place”.
The first case of alleged loss was reported on July 18, 2012. A month later, a Cisco spokesperson was quoted in the press saying that eight customers had reported alleged losses since then.
No follow-up action was taken by the eight customers, however, and none has made substantiated claims against Cisco.
