Ong Kian Peng Julian v Tiong Sze Yin Serene: Defamation and Justification in Doctor's Conduct

Ong Kian Peng Julian appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the District Court's decision in a defamation suit against Serene Tiong Sze Yin. The suit arose from emails sent by Tiong alleging that Ong colluded with another doctor to take advantage of vulnerable female patients. The High Court, with See Kee Oon J presiding, allowed the appeal, finding that while there was partial justification concerning one patient, the defense of justification was not fully met. The court granted Ong judgment for libel and an injunction.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Defamation case where Ong Kian Peng Julian sued Tiong Sze Yin Serene. The court allowed the appeal, finding partial justification regarding one patient.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ong Kian Peng JulianAppellantIndividualAppeal allowedWon
Serene Tiong Sze YinRespondentIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Ong Ying Ping of Ong Ying Ping Esq
Chua Kok Siong Kenneth of Ong Ying Ping Esq

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Christopher Chong Fook ChoyDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Aw Sze MinDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Philip JeyaretnamDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Mark Lewis ShanDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Ong Ying PingOng Ying Ping Esq
Chua Kok Siong KennethOng Ying Ping Esq

4. Facts

  1. The appellant was a consultant general and colorectal surgeon.
  2. The respondent was a business development manager.
  3. Dr. Chan and the respondent were in an extra-marital relationship.
  4. The respondent accessed Dr. Chan’s phone and took screenshots of WhatsApp messages between the appellant and Dr. Chan.
  5. The respondent sent emails to Dr. Chan’s colleagues alleging that the appellant colluded with Dr. Chan to take advantage of vulnerable female patients.
  6. The appellant claimed the emails were defamatory.
  7. The respondent pleaded the defence of justification.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ong Kian Peng Julian v Tiong Sze Yin Serene, District Court Appeal No 12 of 2020, [2020] SGHC 210
  2. Ong Kian Peng Julian v Serene Tiong Sze Yin, , [2020] SGDC 94

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Dr. Chan and the respondent entered into an extra-marital relationship.
Dr. Chan and the respondent took a trip to Eastern Europe.
The respondent accessed Dr. Chan’s phone without his knowledge and consent, and took screenshots of various WhatsApp messages between the appellant and Dr. Chan.
Appellant's wife called him to question him about what was going on.
Dr. Chan and the respondent's extra-marital relationship ended.
The respondent looked for Dr. Chan at SGH where they had an argument.
The respondent sent various emails to several of Dr. Chan’s colleagues in SGH and in private practice.
The appellant instructed Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP to write a letter to the respondent, demanding that she cease publication of defamatory allegations against him.
The appellant commenced proceedings against the respondent in DC Suit No. 1894 of 2018.
Certified Transcript
Certified Transcript
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court found that the emails sent by the respondent were defamatory of the appellant.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Justification
    • Outcome: The court found that the respondent had partially succeeded in her defence of justification with respect to one patient, but not fully.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for libel
  2. Injunction restraining the respondent from publishing defamatory allegations

9. Cause of Actions

  • Libel

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Aaron Anne Joseph and others v Cheong Yip Seng and othersN/AYes[1996] 1 SLR(R) 258SingaporeCited for the test to determine if the offending words were defamatory.
Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 SLR 506SingaporeCited for the principle that the defendant has only to prove the 'sting' of the charge in a justification defense.
Microsoft Corp v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and another and other appealsN/AYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 465SingaporeCited for the principle that the court is to decide what meaning the words complained of would have conveyed to an ordinary, reasonable person.
Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David and othersN/AYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 277SingaporeCited for the principle that the court need not engage in a meticulous examination of every word in question or every detail of fact.
Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik VictorN/AYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 86SingaporeCited for the principle that the defence of justification would not be made out if a defendant’s attempt to show that the defamatory statements are true rested largely on unsubstantiated assertions of fact, tenuous circumstantial evidence and inferences.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and anotherN/AYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004SingaporeCited for the principle that the justification must meet the sting of the charge.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defamation
  • Justification
  • Libel
  • Collusion
  • Vulnerable woman patients
  • WhatsApp messages
  • Doctor-patient relationship

15.2 Keywords

  • Defamation
  • Justification
  • Libel
  • Singapore
  • Doctor
  • Patient
  • WhatsApp

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Defamation90
Civil Procedure30
Evidence Law20
Professional Ethics15
Medical Law10
Personal Injury10
Contract Law10
Estoppel5
Agency Law5

16. Subjects

  • Defamation
  • Tort Law