Soh Rui Yong v Singapore Athletic Association: Striking Out Plea of Malice in Defamation Suit

In Soh Rui Yong v Singapore Athletic Association, the High Court of Singapore considered an application by the Singapore Athletic Association to strike out Mr. Soh Rui Yong’s plea of malice in a defamation suit. The court, presided over by Assistant Registrar Justin Yeo, struck out paragraph 25 of the Amended Reply and its accompanying particulars, finding them factually unsustainable under Order 18 rr 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) of the Rules of Court. The court ordered the Plaintiff to file an amended Reply within seven days of the decision.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Paragraph 25 of the Amended Reply and its accompanying particulars struck out under Order 18 Rules 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) of the Rules of Court.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court struck out Soh Rui Yong's plea of malice in a defamation suit against the Singapore Athletic Association, finding the particulars factually unsustainable.

1.7 Decision Date

11 October 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Soh Rui Yong	Plaintiff, Respondent	Individual	Plea of malice struck out	Lost	Leng Ting Kun of Foxwood LLC Darius Lee of Foxwood LLC
Singapore Athletic Association	Defendant, Applicant	Association	Application granted	Won	Mahmood Gaznavi of Mahmood Gaznavi & Partners

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Justin Yeo	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Leng Ting Kun	Foxwood LLC
Darius Lee	Foxwood LLC
Mahmood Gaznavi	Mahmood Gaznavi & Partners

4. Facts

Plaintiff is a national athlete and two-time gold medallist for the 42.195km Men’s Marathon events at the 2015 and 2017 SEA Games.
Defendant is a registered society under the Societies Act and is a National Sports Association in Singapore.
On 2 August 2019, the Defendant issued a public statement endorsing the Singapore National Olympic Council’s decision to reject the Plaintiff’s nomination for the SEA Games.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Words were false and defamatory of him, suggesting he breached the Athlete’s Code of Conduct.
The Defendant pleaded the defences of “fair comment” and “qualified privilege”.
The Plaintiff pleaded that the Defendant acted with malice in publishing the Words.
The Plaintiff referred to a Facebook post and the Defendant’s alleged breach of confidentiality as evidence of malice.

5. Formal Citations

Soh Rui Yong v Singapore Athletic Association, HC/S 898 of 2019, [2020] SGHCR 7

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2019-08-02	Defendant issued a public statement endorsing the Singapore National Olympic Council’s decision to reject the Plaintiff’s nomination for the SEA Games.
2019-08-03	The Words were reported in the online platform of The Straits Times.
2019-09-11	Plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons and the accompanying Statement of Claim.
2019-10-03	The Defence was originally filed.
2020-02-27	Defendant published a post on its Facebook page captioned “The Women World Marathon Record is faster than our Singapore Men’s National Record by 9 minutes”.
2020-07-13	Defendant filed an amended Defence.
2020-07-13	Plaintiff filed Statement of Claim (Amendment No 1).
2020-07-27	Plaintiff filed an amended Reply.
2020-08-26	Plaintiff filed affidavit of Soh Rui Yong.
2020-09-16	Court heard the application.
2020-10-12	Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

Striking Out Pleadings
- Outcome: The court struck out the Plaintiff's plea of malice, finding it factually unsustainable and in violation of pleading rules.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Scandalous pleadings
  - Frivolous pleadings
  - Vexatious pleadings
  - Prejudicial pleadings
  - Embarrassing pleadings
  - Delay of fair trial
  - Abuse of process
- Related Cases:
  - [2012] 4 SLR 546
  - [2015] 5 SLR 962
Malice in Defamation
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient particulars to support the claim of malice.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Lack of genuine belief in truth
  - Improper motive
  - Ulterior motive
  - Recklessness as to truth
- Related Cases:
  - [2010] 4 SLR 331
  - [1989] 2 SLR(R) 544
  - [2012] 1 SLR 506
  - [1997] 1 SLR(R) 953
  - [1998] 3 SLR(R) 774
  - [2018] 3 SLR 356

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the Words were false and defamatory
Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Defamation

10. Practice Areas

Litigation
Defamation Law

11. Industries

Sports

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 331	Singapore	Cited for the principle that malice demonstrates that the August 2019 Statement was “actuated” by an improper or ulterior motive.
Lee Kuan Yew v Davies Derek Gwyn and others	N/A	Yes	[1989] 2 SLR(R) 544	Singapore	Cited for the principle that malice demonstrates that the Defendant did not believe the August 2019 Statement to be true or was reckless as to the truth of the statement.
Saga Foodstuffs Manufacturing (Pte) Ltd v Best Food Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1994] 1 SLR(R) 505	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an amendment is retrospective to the original date that a pleading is filed.
Ezion Holdings Ltd v Credit Suisse AG	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2018] 3 SLR 356	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the individuals within the Defendant who were alleged to have malicious intent have not been particularised.
DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd and others and another suit	Singapore International Commercial Court	Yes	[2018] 5 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that O 18 r 9 of the Rules of Court permits a party to plead any matter which has arisen at any time, whether before or since the issue of the writ.
DHKW Marketing and another v Nature’s Farm Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 774	Singapore	Cited for the principle that post-publication conduct, including conduct after the commencement of proceedings, can be considered as evidence of malice in the context of a defamation suit.
The “Bunga Melati 5”	N/A	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 546	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is good practice for an applicant seeking a striking out order to “precisely correlate the arguments it advances to the exact limb under O 18 r 19(1).
Likpin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd and another	N/A	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 962	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the Court does not embark on a minute and protracted examination of the documents and facts.
Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2010] 3 SLR 110	Singapore	Cited for the distinction between the types of malice that will defeat the defences of qualified privilege and fair comment.
Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appeal	N/A	Yes	[2012] 1 SLR 506	Singapore	Cited for the principle that malice may be proven in two ways, ie, (i) the defendant’s knowledge of falsity, recklessness, or lack of belief in the defamatory statement; and (ii) where the defendant has a genuine or honest belief in the truth of the defamatory statement, but his dominant motive is to injure the defendant or some other improper motive.
Nirumalan K Pillay and others v A Balakrishnan and others	N/A	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR(R) 953	Singapore	Cited for the principle that to succeed in a plea of malice to defeat the defences of qualified privilege or fair comment, the Plaintiff must show that the defamatory act was actuated by the Defendant’s malice.
Nirumalan K Pillay v A Balakrishnan	N/A	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR(R) 650	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party alleging malice “must be in possession of facts and matters which support malice and not concoct a case by introducing irrelevant facts which embarrass the defendant”.
Claire Henderson v The London Borough of Hackney and The Learning Trust	High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[2010] EWHC 1651 (QB)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that mere assertion is insufficient when pleading particulars of malice.
The “Jarguh Sawit”	N/A	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 829	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a cause of action must be established as at the date when proceedings are instituted.
Gao Shuchao v Tan Kok Quan an others	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 115	Singapore	Both DHKW Marketing and Ezion were also referred to in Gao Shuchao v Tan Kok Quan an others [2018] SGHC 115 at [53].

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) of the Rules of Court
Order 18 Rule 19(1)(c) of the Rules of Court
Order 18 Rule 19(1)(d) of the Rules of Court
Order 18 Rule 9 of the Rules of Court
Order 12 Rule 12(1)(b) of the Rules of Court
Order 78 Rule 3(3) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, Rev Ed 2014)	Singapore
Societies Act (Cap 311, Rev Ed 2014)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Malice
Defamation
Striking out
Fair comment
Qualified privilege
Rules of Court
Pleadings
Athlete Code of Conduct
SEA Games

15.2 Keywords

defamation
malice
striking out
pleadings
Singapore
sports
athlete

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Libel, Slander and Defamation	95
Pleadings	80
Civil Practice	75

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Defamation
Tort Law