Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Lee Li Choon |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] SGDC 280 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | District Court Suit No 1784 of 2019, District Court Summons 3822 of 2020 |
| Year | 2020 |
| Published date | 25 December 2020 |
| Hearing Date | 03 December 2020 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Clarence Lun, Samuel Lim (M/s Foxwood LLC) |
| Defendant Counsel | Mark Teng, Lim Tianjun, Ng Weng Sun (M/s That.Legal LLC) |
| Subject Matter | Courts and Jurisdiction,Judges,Recusal |
| Citation | [2020] SGDC 280 |
District Court Summons 3822 of 2020 is an application by the Defendant in District Court Suit No. 1784 of 2019, Soh Rui Yong that I be recused from hearing any application or matter arising out of or in connection with the said suit on grounds of apparent bias, prejudgment and excessive judicial interference. The application was filed on 9 November 2020 and I heard the application on 3 December 2020.
District Court Suit No. 1784 of 2019 is a defamation suit filed on 17 June 2019 by the Plaintiff, Ashley Liew (“Liew”) against the Defendant, Soh Rui Yong (“Soh”). The defamation action arose out of a (i) Blog Post made by Soh on 5 June 2018 commenting on an incident at the 2015 28
Liew and Soh are marathon runners who represented Singapore during the event. The undisputed fact is that at the said marathon event, an incident occurred in which, except for Liew, all the marathon runners, including Soh missed a specific U-Turn. Liew was subsequently awarded the Fair Play Award in 2016 for his act of sportsmanship of slowing down to allow the other marathon runners to catch up with him at that marathon race. The key words in both the Blog Post and the Facebook Comment that are the subject of this defamation suit are: “…
In his Defence, Soh denies that there was any defamatory meaning in his Blog Post and Facebook Comment. He also relies on the defence of justification to the extent that the statements in the Blog Post and Facebook Comment bear meanings, they are true in substance and in fact. He further relies on the defence of fair comment insofar as the words constitute a fair comment on a matter of public interest, namely the events of the 2015 SEA Games Marathon and/or the Award given by the International Fair Play Committee.
Case History In the proceedings before me, Liew is represented by Mr Mark Teng of That.Legal LLC (“Liew’s counsel”) and Soh is represented by Mr Clarence Lun of Foxwood LLC (“Soh’s counsel”). Liew has four witnesses of fact (including Liew himself) and Soh has four witnesses of fact (including Soh himself) as follows:
The trial was first heard over 8 days in September 2020 (1-3 Sept; 8-11 Sept; 24 Sept) and is part-heard at this point in time. Just before and in the midst of the trial, various applications were filed by both parties and these spawned four appeals to the High Court by Soh, two of which have been dismissed by Justice Valerie Thean with two pending hearing. As my decisions in these applications form the substance of allegations of biasness against me, I set out a brief summary of the key applications as follows:
SUM 2786/2020This is an application filed on 26 August 2020 by Liew for leave to file a supplementary affidavit of evidence in chief to introduce additional documents, the bulk of which are documents that originated from Soh such as Soh’s further posts on social media and online activities. The rest are publicly available documents from Today Online and The Online Citizen and two are letters of demand and cease and desist letters sent by Liew to Soh and Soh’s counsel. These documents were disclosed to Soh by way of the Lists of Documents filed on 29 October 2019 and 13 August 2020. The bulk of the documents were disclosed in the first List of Documents filed on 29 October 2019. Soh did not challenge the authenticity of the documents disclosed in the first List of Document filed on 29 October 2019 and these were included in the Agreed Bundle of Documents.
I heard the application in the morning of the second day of trial (2 September 2020). As these new documents were intended to be adduced to show evidence of Soh’s conduct which is relevant to the question of damages, I granted leave for Liew to file a supplementary affidavit of evidence in chief to introduce these additional documents. Soh appealed against my decision to the High Court. His appeal was dismissed by Justice Valerie Thean on 21 October 2020. In dismissing the appeal, Justice Valerie Thean noted, “These were
This is an application filed on 3 September 2020 by Soh for leave to file his supplementary affidavit of evidence in chief to admit his GPS records at the marathon race. I heard the application on 8 September 2020 morning and dismissed the application on the basis that Soh has not given any explanation why the GPS records could not have been disclosed during discovery and that he has failed to show how his GPS records which shows his pace in the race is relevant to the material question of whether Liew slowed down or not, among other reasons. Soh appealed against my decision to the High Court. His appeal was dismissed by Justice Valerie Thean on 21 October 2020. In dismissing his appeal, Justice Valerie Thean reasoned that first, his GPS records ought to have been disclosed at discovery and disclosure obligations ought to have been taken seriously especially as the GPS evidence is from an electronic device and second, the evidence is not crucial to the case as Liew’s estimate which Soh seeks to debunk was in any event an estimate which I had also pointed out.
SUM 2895/2020This is an application filed on 7 September 2020 by Soh for leave to file new evidence by an expert witness, Mr Cheong Fook Seng who will give his opinion evidence on whether Liew had slowed down based on Soh’s GPS records among other things. I heard the application on 16 October 2020 and dismissed the application on the basis that Soh has not shown that the expert evidence could not have been reasonably obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial before the start of the trial. I also found the evidence to be essentially rebuttal evidence and that Soh has not shown that a matter or development had quite unexpectedly arisen during trial which he could not reasonably have anticipated, or which had taken him by surprise. Soh has, on 22 October, filed his appeal against my decision in RAS 25/2020 and the matter is presently fixed for hearing in the High Court on 17 March 2021.
SUM 3132/2020This is an application filed on 23 September 2020 by Liew for leave to amend his Statement of Claim to add particulars relating to Soh’s conduct to substantiate his claim for aggravated damages and exemplary damages. All the additional particulars are of documents that have already been admitted into evidence through the Agreed Bundle of Documents and Liew’s supplementary affidavit of evidence in chief that was allowed via SUM 2786/2020. I heard the application on 16 October 2020. It was represented to me by Liew’s counsel that he would not require any further cross-examination of Soh, and that there would be no further delay occasioned by the allowing of the amendment. I granted leave to Liew to amend his Statement of Claim and gave directions to Soh for the filing of consequential amendments to his Defence. Soh has, on 19 October 2020 filed his appeal against my decision in RAS 24/2020 and the matter is presently fixed for hearing in the High Court on 17 March 2021.
SUM 3175/2020This is an application by Soh to admit new evidence of two factual witnesses. I heard the application on 16 October and dismissed the application on the basis that the evidence is essentially rebuttal evidence and Soh has not shown that the rebuttal evidence is a necessary response to a matter or development that has quite unexpectedly arisen during trial and which he could not reasonably have anticipated or which has taken him by surprise. Presently, Soh has not filed an appeal against this decision and the appeal period had already expired on 30 October 2020.
Current StatusBy the end of 10 September 2020, Liew has closed his case. The remaining two days (11 September 2020 and 24 September 2020) were spent on the Defence. By 24 September 2020, Liew’s counsel has completed the cross-examination of Soh and one of his three remaining factual witnesses. The part-heard trial is left with Soh’s two factual witness (Soh Seow Hong and Madankumar Balakrishnan) for cross-examination by Liew’s counsel and a re-examination as necessary by Soh’s counsel and the re-calling of Liew for further cross-examination by Soh’s counsel on the documents originating from Soh that I have allowed via Liew’s supplementary affidavit of evidence in chief and the amendment to the Statement of Claim.
Factual Backdrop Surrounding the AllegationsSoh’s allegations centre around what I had said and the decisions I have made in the context of what I would term as “the 700m issue”. As the context is important, I turn now to set out how the 700m issue came about and what transpired at the trial proceedings regarding this 700m issue.
I start with what Liew has said in his affidavit of evidence in chief on the relevant aspects. At paragraphs 32 and 33 of his affidavit of evidence in chief, Liew said:
To continue reading
Request your trial