Tiong v Chan: Negligence & Wilkinson Rule in Doctor-Patient Relationship
In Tiong Sze Yin Serene v Chan Herng Nieng, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Ms. Tiong's claims against Dr. Chan for negligence and under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton. Ms. Tiong alleged Dr. Chan, her former lover and psychiatrist, breached his duty of care by providing her with Xanax, leading to addiction and psychiatric harm. She also claimed Dr. Chan made false statements about a long-term exclusive relationship, causing her emotional distress when she discovered his infidelity. The court found Ms. Tiong's evidence unreliable, failed to prove Dr. Chan's negligence or intent to cause harm, and dismissed both claims.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Claim dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court dismisses negligence and Wilkinson rule claims in a case involving a doctor and his former lover.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tiong Sze Yin Serene | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Ong Ying Ping |
| Chan Herng Nieng | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Chew Ming Hsien Rebecca, Lim Wee Teck Darren, Benedict Tedjopranoto |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Siong Thye | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ong Ying Ping | Ong Ying Ping Esq |
| Chew Ming Hsien Rebecca | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Lim Wee Teck Darren | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Benedict Tedjopranoto | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- Ms. Tiong and Dr. Chan were in an intimate relationship from January 2017 to May 2018.
- Dr. Chan is a psychiatrist, and Ms. Tiong is a Senior Business Development Manager.
- Dr. Chan gave Ms. Tiong Xanax tablets during their relationship.
- Ms. Tiong discovered WhatsApp messages on Dr. Chan's phone revealing his infidelity.
- Ms. Tiong lodged a complaint against Dr. Chan to the Singapore Medical Council.
- Ms. Tiong demanded money from Dr. Chan after their relationship ended.
- The Singapore Police Force issued Ms. Tiong a written warning for attempted extortion.
5. Formal Citations
- Tiong Sze Yin Serene v Chan Herng Nieng, Suit No 400 of 2020, [2022] SGHC 170
- Ong Kian Peng Julian v Serene Tiong Sze Yin, , [2020] SGDC 94
- Ong Kian Peng Julian v Tiong Sze Yin Serene, , [2021] 3 SLR 980
- Tiong Sze Yin Serene v HC Surgical Specialists Ltd and another, , [2020] SGHC 201
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ms. Tiong and Dr. Chan met at a social event. | |
| Ms. Tiong and Dr. Chan started an intimate relationship. | |
| Ms. Tiong filed for divorce against Mr. Ho. | |
| Dr. Chan expressed displeasure that Ms. Tiong was still in contact with her exes. | |
| Ms Tiong's divorce was finalised. | |
| Ms. Tiong and Dr. Chan went on a trip to Eastern Europe. | |
| Ms. Tiong discovered WhatsApp messages on Dr. Chan’s mobile phone. | |
| Dr. Chan decided to end the relationship. | |
| Ms. Tiong demanded a Cartier watch and $10,000 from Dr. Chan. | |
| Dr. Chan stopped responding to Ms. Tiong. | |
| Ms. Tiong lodged a complaint against Dr. Chan to the Disciplinary Tribunal of the SMC. | |
| Ms. Tiong sent emails attaching the SMC Complaint to several of Dr. Chan’s colleagues. | |
| Ms. Tiong bought shares in HC Surgical Specialists Ltd. | |
| The Singapore Police Force issued Ms. Tiong a written warning. | |
| Ms. Tiong commenced a statutory derivative action. | |
| The SMC notified Ms. Tiong that it was suspending Dr. Chan for five months. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court found that Dr. Chan did not breach his duty of care to Ms. Tiong.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to ascertain suitability of Xanax
- Failure to ensure patient would not become addicted to Xanax
- Failure to caution against drug dependency
- Failure to keep clinical notes
- Related Cases:
- [1957] 1 WLR 582
- [1998] AC 232
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
- [2017] 2 SLR 492
- Rule in Wilkinson v Downton
- Outcome: The court found that Ms. Tiong failed to prove the elements of the rule in Wilkinson v Downton.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1897] 2 QB 57
- [2008] 3 SLR(R) 674
- [2001] 3 SLR(R) 379
- [2016] AC 219
- [2019] SGDC 285
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Rule in Wilkinson v Downton)
10. Practice Areas
- Medical Malpractice
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wilkinson v Downton | English court | Yes | [1897] 2 QB 57 | England | Cited as the basis for the alternative cause of action for psychiatric harm caused by intentional false statements. |
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable test to determine the existence of a duty of care. |
| Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee | Unknown | Yes | [1957] 1 WLR 582 | Unknown | Cited for the applicable law regarding the standard of care in cases of medical negligence. |
| Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority | Unknown | Yes | [1998] AC 232 | Unknown | Cited for the applicable law regarding the standard of care in cases of medical negligence. |
| Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 492 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the Bolam-Bolitho test to determine the standard of care in the context of diagnosis and treatment. |
| Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical Council and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 356 | Singapore | Cited regarding the SMC Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines. |
| Johnson v Bingley | English High Court | Yes | [1997] PNLR 392 | England | Cited to show that a breach of a professional conduct guide does not automatically lead to a finding of negligence. |
| Ong Kian Peng Julian v Serene Tiong Sze Yin | District Court | Yes | [2020] SGDC 94 | Singapore | Cited for background information on the defamation suit. |
| Ong Kian Peng Julian v Tiong Sze Yin Serene | Unknown | Yes | [2021] 3 SLR 980 | Singapore | Cited for background information on the defamation appeal. |
| Tiong Sze Yin Serene v HC Surgical Specialists Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 201 | Singapore | Cited for background information on the derivative action suit. |
| Rathanamalah d/o Shunmugam v Chia Kok Hoong | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 159 | Singapore | Cited to show that SMC guidelines do not dictate evidential burdens in civil suits. |
| Ngiam Kong Seng and another v Lim Chiew Hock | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 674 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that wilfully communicating false information is actionable if it causes physical, including psychiatric, harm. |
| Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram and another v Mehta Naresh Kumar | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 379 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that false words or verbal threats calculated to cause, and uttered with the knowledge that they are likely to cause, and actually causing physical injury to the person to whom they are uttered are actionable. |
| O (A Child) v Rhodes and another (English PEN and others intervening) | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2016] AC 219 | United Kingdom | Cited for the necessary elements to make out a claim under the rule in Wilkinson. |
| Nina Duwi Koriah v Noor Hayah binte Gulam and another | District Court | Yes | [2019] SGDC 285 | Singapore | Cited for the elements in a Wilkinson claim. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Poisons Act (Cap 234, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Xanax
- Duty of Care
- Medical Negligence
- Psychiatric Harm
- Wilkinson v Downton
- Singapore Medical Council
- Extortion
- Infidelity
- WhatsApp Messages
15.2 Keywords
- negligence
- medical negligence
- psychiatrist
- Xanax
- duty of care
- Wilkinson v Downton
- Singapore
- SMC
- extortion
- infidelity
16. Subjects
- Tort Law
- Medical Law
- Ethics
- Family Law
17. Areas of Law
- Tort
- Negligence
- Medical Negligence
- Psychiatric Harm