Soh Rui Yong v Singapore Athletic Association

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Justin Yeo AR
• Judgment Date: 12 October 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGHCR 7
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit No 898 of 2019 (Summons No 3469 of 2020)
• Year: 2020
• Published date: 17 October 2020
• Hearing Date: 12 October 2020,16 September 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Darius Lee and Mr Leng Ting Kun (Foxwood LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Mahmood Gaznavi (Mahmood Gaznavi & Partners)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Pleadings,Striking Out,Tort,Defamation,Malice
• Citation: [2020] SGHCR 7

Justin Yeo AR:

This is an application brought by the Singapore Athletic Association (“the Defendant”), pursuant to O 18 r O 18 r 19(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, Rev Ed 2014) (“Rules of Court”), to strike out Mr Soh Rui Yong’s (“the Plaintiff”) plea of malice.

Background

The Plaintiff is a national athlete who has represented Singapore at several international sporting events. He is the current national record holder and two-time gold medallist for the 42.195km Men’s Marathon events at the 2015 and 2017 South East Asian Games (“SEA Games”).¹ The Defendant is a registered society under the Societies Act (Cap 311, Rev Ed 2014), and is a National Sports Association in Singapore.

On 2 August 2019, the Defendant issued a public statement (“the August 2019 Statement”) endorsing the Singapore National Olympic Council’s decision to reject the Plaintiff’s nomination for the SEA Games that were to be held in the Philippines in December 2019 (“the 2019 SEA Games”). The August 2019 Statement included certain phrases which the Plaintiff has alleged in the present suit to be defamatory, and which the parties have referred to as “the Words”. The Words were reported in the online platform of The Straits Times on 3 August 2019, as follows (with the Words emphasised in italics):²

SINGAPORE – National track and field body Singapore Athletics (SA) will not be lodging an appeal for national marathoner Soh Rui Yong, who was omitted from the 585-athlete contingent bound for the upcoming SEA Games in the Philippines.

On Thursday (Aug 1), selectors from the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) rejected SA’s nomination for Soh for the Games, despite the athlete having met the qualifying mark for the men’s marathon event.

The SNOC cited “numerous instances” where Soh, who won the SEA Games gold in 2015 and 2017, displayed conduct that “falls short of the standards of attitude and behaviour” it expects from its athletes.

In a Statement issued on Friday (Aug 2), SA said that it accepted the decision and acknowledged Soh, 27, had “on several occasions breached SA’s Athlete Code of Conduct”.

“For his transgressions, SA had attempted to counsel and reason with him, as a part of a holistic rehabilitation process, in dealing with a significant individual who matters to the sport,” it added.

SA had temporarily suspended “further engagement” with Soh on the matter of his conduct due to the “development of legal actions between him and (teammate) Ashley Liew”, it added.”

SA noted: “As the matter in dealing with his conduct has yet to conclude, SA submitted its nomination for Rui Yong for the SEA Games with the view that it can be withdrawn when justifiably appropriate. SA was ready to convene the disciplinary proceedings against Rui Yong but only after due and proper process.”

…

The SNOC’s controversial decision to leave Soh out of the SEA Games squad has divided the sports fraternity, with some supporting the former’s move while others have spoken up for the athlete.

The organisation noted that “since the 2017 SEA Games, there have been numerous instances where Soh has displayed conduct that falls short of the standards of attitude and behaviour that the SNOC expects of and holds its athletes to”.

…

The Plaintiff alleged that the Words were false and defamatory of him, as they suggested that the Defendant had, upon conducting proper investigations and in accordance with due process, found that the Plaintiff had acted in breach of the Athlete’s Code of Conduct.³ The Words also suggested that the Plaintiff had committed various “transgressions” which required rehabilitation and counselling from the Defendant.⁴ The Plaintiff therefore filed a Writ of Summons and the accompanying Statement of Claim on 11 September 2019, seeking – amongst other things – a declaration that the Words were false and defamatory of him.⁵

The Defence was originally filed on 3 October 2019. The Defendant subsequently filed an amended Defence on 13 July 2020, amending and elaborating on its defence of “fair comment” as well as adding a new defence of “qualified privilege”. For present purposes, the relevant part of the amended Defence is the Defendant’s pleading that: the Words constituted “fair comment on a matter of public interest, namely the explanation as to why a top track athlete in the Plaintiff was not selected to represent Singapore on a regional stage”;⁶ and alternatively, if the Words were defamatory of the Plaintiff (which the Defendant denies), the Words were published “on an occasion of qualified privilege”.⁷

The Reply was originally filed on 28 October 2019. The Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended Reply on 27 July 2020 (“the Amended Reply”), pleading that the Defendant was not entitled to rely on the defences of “fair comment” or “qualified privilege” because the Defendant “had no genuine belief in the truth of the Words and had acted with malice in publishing and/or causing the Words to be published”.⁸ In particular, the Plaintiff referred to: a post published on the Defendant’s Facebook page on 27 February 2020, captioned “The Women World Marathon Record is faster than our Singapore Men’s National Record by 9 minutes” (“the Facebook Post”); and the Defendant’s alleged breach of confidentiality by providing the Plaintiff’s confidential documents and information to one Mr Malik Aljunied, an executive director of the Defendant, for the purposes of another suit between the Plaintiff and Mr Malik in HC/S 851/2019 (“S 851”) (“the Alleged Breach of Confidence”).

Paragraph 25 of the Amended Reply and its accompanying sub-paragraphs are set out in full as follows: 25. Further and in any event, the Defendant is not entitled to rely on the defences of fair comment and/or qualified privilege as the Defendant had no genuine belief in the truth of the Words and had acted with malice in publishing and/or causing the Words to be published. Such malice may be inferred from the facts set out below.

Particulars

ii.[sic] On or around 27 February 2020, the 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”. iii. This Facebook post was clearly targeted at the Plaintiff, the current national record holder in Singapore, and was made with the malicious intention to insult the Plaintiff and undermine his reputation. iv. The Facebook post was eventually taken down with an admission from the Defendant’s president Tang Weng Fei that it was a “lapse in judgment” after the Defendant received severe backlash from the public. v. The Defendant also acted in breach of its duty of confidentiality by providing the Plaintiff’s confidential documents and information to Mr Malik Aljunied, an executive director of the Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s knowledge and/or consent, and further permitted the unauthorized misuse of the Plaintiff’s confidential information by Mr Malik Aljunied for his own purposes, in Mr Malik’s suit in his private capacity against the Plaintiff in HC/S 851/2019 (“Suit 851”). These confidential documents and/or information include: a. SAA’s Code of Conduct dated 23 November 2018 signed between the Plaintiff and SAA (the “COC”); b. The Singapore National Olympic Council’s (“SNOC”) Team Membership Agreement signed between the Plaintiff and SNOC (“SNOC TMA”); c. The spexCarding Agreement dated 23 November 2018 signed between the Plaintiff and SAA; and d. A letter regarding the Plaintiff’s alleged non-compliance with the SNOC TMA dated on or before 14 August 2017 from Yip Ren Kai, Team Manager, SNOC, MGPC Athletics (the “TMA Letter”).

(collectively, the “Confidential Documents”)

vi. These Confidential Documents contained a significant amount of confidential information. For instance, at pages 8 to 10 of the COC, athletes such as the Plaintiff were required to submit to the Defendant highly confidential and personal information, including inter alia their NRIC and passport information, as well as details of their personalized training regimes, as below: a. A scanned copy of their NRIC and Passport; b. The Name and Accreditation of their coach; c. Their Annual Performance Goals; and/or d. Their Annual Training Plan. vii. On or around 26 August 2019, the Plaintiff filed a suit in HC/S 851/2019 (“Suit 851”) against Mr Malik Aljunied for defamatory remarks published on his Facebook Profile page. viii. However, on 23 September 2019, Mr Malik Aljunied filed his Defence in Suit 851 relying on the existence and contents of the Confidential Documents in various parts of his pleadings. In particular, the Confidential Documents and/or their contents were referred to in the following paragraphs of the Defence: a. The SNOC TMA – at paragraphs 14.1.1, 14.3, 14.5 and 14.6 of the Defence; b. The COC and the SCA – at paragraphs 14.1.2, 14.3.2, 14.4, 14.5 and 14.6 of the Defence; and c. The TMA Letter – at paragraph 14.6.2 of the Defence. ix. Subsequently, the Plaintiff’s solicitors issued a Notice to Produce Documents Referred to in Pleadings dated 27 December 2019 requesting the production of documents referred to in the Defence. Through his solicitors, on 28 January 2020, Malik Aljunied provided copies of the documents requested, which contained scanned copies of the Confidential Documents enumerated at paragraphs 5A(iv)(a) to (d) above. x. In light of the foregoing, the Defendant acted in breach of its duty of confidentiality by permitting and/or allowing the unauthorized use and/or disclosure of the Confidential Documents by Mr Malik Aljunied in Suit 851. This was done without the Plaintiff’s knowledge and at no point did the Defendant seek the Plaintiff’s consent for the Confidential Documents to be used by Mr Malik Aljunied in the...