Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 defences that might be available to the defendant for that conduct. I also agree with Lee J that allowing the subsequent conduct to be considered in aggravation could essentially be a backdoor admission for an unproven tort in the assessment of damages. However, insofar as the Court of Appeal’s decision in Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew [1979–1980] SLR(R) 255 is binding on me and makes clear at [17] that subsequent conduct, particularly relating to the impugning of the plaintiff’s motives, can be a basis for aggravated damages, I accept the plaintiff’s submission on this point. 113 Turning to the plaintiff’s arguments arising out of the defendant’s conduct at trial, I was unpersuaded that the defendant’s conduct of the trial went so far as to warrant aggravated damages on this front. While propositions were robustly put to the plaintiff, and there was suggestion that there had been an abuse of process, I did not see these as being, without more, aggravating. The suggestions the defendant’s counsel invited the plaintiff to consider were not wholly contumelious, nor did they cause further harm to the plaintiff: Roy Ngerng at [91]. The defendant’s counsel’s lines of questioning on why the plaintiff had singled the defendant out from others who had shared the Article to sue was reasonable, and cohered with the allegation by the defence that there had been an abuse of process. I was not persuaded that this line of questioning was wholly irrelevant, and even if it was, I was not convinced that the defendant had pursued it in such a manner as to warrant aggravated damages on this front. 114 As for the plaintiff’s argument that the absence of any apology or refraining from publication is aggravating, I am prepared to place some limited weight on this. I accept, on the authority of Maidstone Pte Ltd v Takenaka Corp [1992] 1 SLR(R) 752 at [51] and [60] and L K Ang Construction Pte Ltd v Chubb Singapore Pte Ltd [2003] 1 SLR(R) 635 at [24], that the failure or refusal to apologise per se is not evidence of express malice amounting to an aggravating 61