Soh Rui Yong v Liew Wei Yen Ashley: Defamation Suit, Excessive Judicial Interference, Apparent Bias

In Soh Rui Yong v Liew Wei Yen Ashley, the High Court of Singapore heard appeals against decisions made in a defamation suit at the State Courts. The appeals concerned the amendment of the statement of claim, the adduction of expert evidence, and the recusal of the District Judge. The High Court dismissed the appeals related to the adduction of expert evidence and the recusal application, but allowed the appeal regarding the amendment of the statement of claim. The defamation suit involves allegations that Mr. Soh defamed Mr. Liew by disputing Mr. Liew's account of an act of sportsmanship at the 2015 South East Asian Games marathon event.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Registrar's Appeal from the State Courts No 35 of 2020 and Registrar's Appeal from the State Courts No 25 of 2020 were dismissed. Registrar's Appeal from the State Courts No 24 of 2020 was allowed and the orders made in the application below were set aside.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Defamation suit where Soh Rui Yong appealed against decisions related to amendment of claim, expert evidence, and recusal of the judge. Appeals dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Soh Rui YongAppellant, DefendantIndividualAppeal dismissed in partPartial
Liew Wei Yen AshleyRespondent, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Clarence Lun YaodongFervent Chambers LLC
Samuel Lim Jie BinFervent Chambers LLC
Phee Wei QiFervent Chambers LLC
ShaniceFervent Chambers LLC
Selina Shantini NaiduFervent Chambers LLC
Lim TianjunThat.Legal LLC
MarkThat.Legal LLC
Teng Hin WengThat.Legal LLC

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Liew won the International Fair Play Committee’s Pierre de Coubertin World Fair Play Trophy.
  2. The citation for Mr. Liew’s award recounted that he waited for his rivals during the 2015 SEA Games marathon.
  3. Mr. Soh disputed the award’s citation on social media, stating that Mr. Liew did not slow down to wait.
  4. Mr. Liew brought a suit in defamation, contending that the innuendo from this comment was that he had lied about his account of sportsmanship.
  5. Mr. Soh’s Defence denies that his post was defamatory and relies on the defences of justification and fair comment.
  6. A key issue in the trial below was whether Mr. Liew slowed down after the U-turn and for how long.
  7. Mr. Liew's evidence was that he slowed down, and a Japanese runner caught up and ran past him.
  8. Mr. Soh maintained that Mr. Liew did not slow down, and it took him some 7 minutes to catch up with Mr. Liew.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Soh Rui Yong v Liew Wei Yen Ashley, , [2021] SGHC 96

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Men’s Marathon Race at the 28th South East Asian Games in Singapore
District Court Suit No 1784 of 2019 filed
Soh Rui Yong’s AEIC dated
Ashley Liew’s AEIC in DC/DC 1784/2019 dated
Trial began
DJ allowed the SAEIC
SAEIC filed
Mr Liew applied to amend his SOC
DJ allowed the plaintiff to amend his Statement of Claim
DJ dismissed the application of the defendant for the late adduction of additional expert evidence
Registrar’s Appeal from the State Courts No 17 of 2020 dealt with
DJ dismissed the application for the DJ to recuse herself from continuing to hear District Court Suit No 1784 of 2019
Appellant’s Written Submissions for RAS 35 dated
Respondent’s Written Submissions for RAS 24 dated
Counsel for the plaintiff given time to consider the issues
Counsel for the plaintiff given time to consider the issues
Plaintiff’s latest proposal of 16 March 2021 remained prolix, with multiple assertions of evidence over 39 pages
Registrar’s Appeals dealt with
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Excessive Judicial Interference
    • Outcome: The court found no excessive judicial interference that resulted in actual prejudice to the appellant.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interruptions during cross-examination
      • Use of Google Maps by the judge
      • Restrictions on questioning regarding statutory declarations
    • Related Cases:
      • [2018] 2 SLR 1156
      • [2020] 1 SLR 984
  2. Apparent Bias
    • Outcome: The court found no apparent bias on the part of the trial judge.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Series of alleged errors by the judge
      • Comments made by the judge indicating prejudgment
    • Related Cases:
      • [2018] 2 SLR 1156
  3. Amendment of Pleadings
    • Outcome: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders made below, finding that the amendments to the Statement of Claim were prejudicial and prolix.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Prejudice to the defendant
      • Prolixity of the amendments
      • Introduction of evidence through pleadings
  4. Adduction of Expert Evidence
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application for expert evidence was made late and the evidence was not relevant.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Late application for expert witness
      • Relevance of expert evidence
      • Breach of discovery obligations

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Aggravated Damages
  3. Exemplary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Sports

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
BOI v BOJCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1156SingaporeCited for the principles on excessive judicial interference and apparent bias.
Muhammad Nabil bin Mohd Fuad v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 984SingaporeCited for the test for establishing excessive judicial interference.
Cheong Ghim Fah and another v Murugian s/o RangasamyN/AYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 628SingaporeCited for the principle that the time at which an adverse inference would be drawn is at the end of trial.
Public Prosecutor v Chua Siew Wei KathleenN/AYes[2016] 2 SLR 713SingaporeCited and distinguished regarding foreclosure of cross-examination.
TOW v TOVN/AYes[2017] 3 SLR 725SingaporeCited for the principle that an error in law or fact does not mean that bias was present or an appearance of bias created.
Tan Chin Min v The Royal Bank of Scotland plcN/AYes[2013] 4 SLR 529SingaporeCited regarding the importance of requesting transcripts where a judge is quoted.
Re Parti LiyaniN/AYes[2020] 5 SLR 1080SingaporeCited for the principle that counsel’s paramount duty is to assist the court in the administration of justice.
John v MGN LtdN/AYes[1997] QB 586N/ACited for the requirements for awarding exemplary damages in a defamation case.
Hodgson v Imperial Tobacco LtdN/AYes[1998] 1 WLR 1056N/ACited regarding the importance of requesting transcripts where a judge is quoted.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev Ed)
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence ActSingapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defamation
  • Fair Play Award
  • Excessive Judicial Interference
  • Apparent Bias
  • Statement of Claim
  • Expert Evidence
  • Recusal
  • Statutory Declarations
  • SEA Games
  • Marathon
  • U-turn
  • Pace

15.2 Keywords

  • Defamation
  • Judicial Interference
  • Bias
  • Singapore
  • Appeal
  • Sports
  • Marathon

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Defamation Law90
Administrative Law70
Civil Procedure70
Excessive judicial interference60
Evidence Law60
Apparent bias60
Evidence60
Civil Practice50
Civil Litigation50
Judicial Review40
Duty of Candour40
Estoppel30
Jurisdiction30
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Defamation
  • Civil Procedure
  • Judicial Review