Case Summary and Outcome

A fundamental cornerstone of freedom of the press is the protection of sources. This case exemplifies this important principle and protects the sources of the appellant by reversing the decision of the lower court to allow pre-action interrogatories which would have required the disclosure of confidential sources.

Facts

This case involves the appeal of a judgment granting requests for pre-action interrogatories that implicate revealing a journalist’s sources. The appellant is James Michael Dorsey who is a journalist and the respondent is Word Sport Group, an international sports marketing and management company.

This proceeding follows allegations of bribery and corruption which were compiled in a report that was subsequently published in international media across the globe. The appellant was one of the journalists who published blog posts on the alleged scandal and cited that his information came from “sources close to the Asian Football Confederation.” Word Source Group filed pre-action interrogatories on the appellant requiring him to reveal the sources of his information. Word Sport Group claimed that the sources cited by the appellant were in violation of confidentiality agreements and defamed Word Sport Group.

The case came first before the Assistant Registrar who allowed Word Sport Group to serve the interrogatories on appellant, but denied discovery of some documents. This decision was appealed to the High Court Judge who again allowed the interrogatories but limited the scope of questioning. The case was then brought before the Court of Appeals.

Decision Overview

The main issue before the court of appeals was whether the High Court Judge properly granted the order of pre-action interrogatories, which are interrogatories served before the commencement of an action, unique to the Singapore legal system. The Court discussed that pre-action interrogatories can be useful to ascertain whether a claimant actually has a cause of action but should not be used as a fishing expedition to gain information.

The Court discussed a balancing approach where the “real grievance” should be weighed against the “public interest” in prohibiting disclosure. Public interest factors include, “the strength of the possible cause of action contemplated by the applicant; whether it is necessary and proportionate response in all the circumstance; whether the information could be obtained from another source; the degree of confidentiality of the information sought; and whether it will deter similar future wrongdoing.” For deciding whether a “real grievance” exists the court must determine the degree of potential wrongdoing from the source, i.e., some reasonable basis for concluding a wrongful act has been committed.

The main determining factor is the necessity of the sources, and the court typically examines whether the disclosure of the sources is necessary to move forward with the action. The court also looks at whether it is “just” to allow these types of pre-action disclosures. In this case, the Court, looking at these factors and also at whether Word Sport Group would have a viable claim against the sources, ruled that Word Sport Group would still have effective remedies if the pre-action interrogatories were denied.

Additionally, the Court discussed the principle of confidentiality and that Word Sport Group would not have an action against the purported sources because once information enters the public domain it can no longer be considered confidential. Word Sport Group would have to provide some compelling reason why disclosure of this particular source is necessary when the supposed “leak” is all over the internet, not just in appellant’s blog posts.