A legal right to a good reputation
While Professor Chan agrees with the Low Tuck Kwong decision not to grant a declaration on the particular facts, this general ‘all or nothing’ approach in the claim alone for monetary damages might be too rigid, he wrote in his paper. As he pointed out, the four objections are not persuasive enough reasons for rejecting, as a matter of general principle, the potential remedy of a declaration of falsity.
“I think that there is a right to a good legal reputation. Will anyone argue that they have a right to a bad reputation?” he muses, referencing the first objection. “A good reputation is, in a sense, implied, in the right to reputation.”
During his presentation, he outlined some of his arguments for a declaration of falsity to be granted. For one, it is useful when the primary purpose is for the appellant to vindicate his reputation, notes Professor Chan.
“In some of these cases, a declaration of falsity might be appropriate where the plaintiff just wants to clear his name,” he says. “He may not be really after the money.” Furthermore, there will be times when defendants are bankrupt and cannot pay for damages anyway, he says.
As Professor Chan noted during his presentation, reputation and truth are connected. Most importantly, when the court makes a declaration, it carries authoritative weight.
“A declaration of falsity offers a more direct link to protecting one’s reputation. Because you’ve said something false about me, I can ask for a declaration from the court that the statement was false,” he explains.
Asian Scientist Magazine is a media partner of the Singapore Management University Office of Research.
———
Copyright: SMU Office of Research. Read the original article here; Photo: Cyril Ng.
Disclaimer: This article does not necessarily reflect the views of AsianScientist or its staff.
