Tiong Sze Yin Serene v Chan Herng Nieng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Siong Thye J
• Judgment Date: 19 July 2022
• Docket Number: Suit No 400 of 2020
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Tiong Sze Yin Serene

and

Chan Herng Nieng

[2022] SGHC 170

Tan Siong Thye J

Suit No 400 of 2020

General Division of the High Court

Tort — Malicious falsehood — Unfaithful partner making promise of long-term and exclusive sexual relationship — Applicable test for rule in Wilkinson v Downton[1897] 2 QB 57 — Whether promise of long-term and exclusive sexual relationship made — Whether unfaithful partner intended to cause harm — Whether victim suffered physical harm or recognised psychiatric illness

Tort — Negligence — Breach of duty — Psychiatrist giving Xanax tablets to woman he was in intimate relationship with — Whether breach of general professional standard — Whether breach of duty of care to ensure no addiction to Xanax or to ascertain suitability of Xanax — Whether harm suffered as result of breach of duty

Held, dismissing the claim:

(1) A breach of the Singapore Medical Council's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (2016 Edition) (the “ECEG”) did not ipso facto lead to the automatic conclusion that a doctor had acted in breach of the general professional standard, though it could suggest that the general professional standard might not have been complied with: at [51].

(2) Dr Chan did not act in breach of the general professional standard when he gave Xanax to Ms Tiong, his then-girlfriend, without registering her as his patient. Dr Chan's actions were consistent with ECEG Guidelines B1, B3, B5 and C4: at [81].

(3) Ms Tiong gave eight different versions on the critical issues of: (a) the frequency with which Dr Chan purportedly gave her Xanax; and (b) the quantity of Xanax she received from Dr Chan. Given the lack of contemporaneous evidence supporting Ms Tiong's case and the ever-changing nature of her evidence, it was highly unsafe to rely on her allegation that Dr Chan had given her 280 or 330 tablets. On the other hand, Dr Chan's version that he only gave Ms Tiong 14 tablets in May 2018 was more credible: at [87] and [108].

(4) A reasonably experienced psychiatrist in Dr Chan's position would not have foreseen that Ms Tiong would become addicted to Xanax from being given 14 Xanax tablets. Accordingly, Dr Chan did not breach his duty of care to ensure Ms Tiong would not become addicted to Xanax or to ascertain its suitability for her when he gave her 14 Xanax tablets for short-term use: at [109].

(5) Even on Ms Tiong's highest case, ie, that Dr Chan gave her 330 Xanax tablets, a reasonably experienced psychiatrist in Dr Chan's position would not have foreseen or would not have thought there was a good likelihood that Ms Tiong might become addicted to Xanax: at [110].

(6) Ms Tiong failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered harm as a result of Dr Chan giving her Xanax, such harm being either in the form of side effects from consuming Xanax or from developing a dependency on Xanax: at [139].

(7) Ms Tiong failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered harm amounting to $250,000 as a result of Dr Chan giving her Xanax: at [144].

(8) There were three key elements to make out a claim under the rule in Wilkinson: a conduct element, a mental element and a consequence element: at [152] and [154].

(9) Ms Tiong's claim under the rule in Wilkinson was factually unsustainable as none of the three elements were satisfied. There was no evidence that Dr Chan made the Statement to Ms Tiong. Even if Dr Chan made the Statement, there was no evidence that he had done so with the intention of causing Ms Tiong harm as they were in a romantic relationship. In any case, Ms Tiong did not suffer physical harm or any recognised psychiatric illness as a result of Dr Chan's infidelity: at [156] and [172].

(10) Ms Tiong's evidence was confusing, contradictory and highly unreliable. She gave egregious and gravely inconsistent accounts on key aspects of her case. She also appeared to embellish her account of key events. Ms Tiong's claims were without merit and was an abuse of the court process: at [173], [181] and [185].

(11) While Dr Chan's testimony was largely untarnished by inconsistencies when weighed against Ms Tiong's testimony, this did not in any way excuse or vindicate Dr Chan's disturbing conduct. Doctors such as Dr Chan, who were entrusted with the care of physically or mentally vulnerable patients, were subject to high levels of professional scrutiny in the discharge of their duties. Dr Chan's conduct in exploiting Ms Tiong and other women for his own perverse desires was debauched, degenerate and highly deserving of censure: at [191] and [192].

(12) Ms Tiong's claims against Dr Chan were dismissed. Ms Tiong was to pay costs, to be agreed or taxed, to Dr Chan: at [193] and [195].

Case(s) referred to

Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical Council [2017] 5 SLR 356 (refd)

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 (refd)

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232 (refd)

Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [2017] 2 SLR 492 (refd)

Johnson v Bingley [1997] PNLR 392 (refd)

Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram v Mehta Naresh Kumar [2001] 3 SLR(R) 379; [2001] 4 SLR 454 (refd)

Ngiam Kong Seng v Lim Chiew Hock [2008] 3 SLR(R) 674; [2008] 3 SLR 674 (refd)

Nina Duwi Koriah v Noor Hayah binte Gulam [2019] SGDC 285 (refd)

O v Rhodes [2016] AC 219 (refd)

Ong Kian Peng Julian v Serene Tiong Sze Yin [2020] SGDC 94 (refd)

Ong Kian Peng Julian v Tiong Sze Yin Serene [2021] 3 SLR 980, HC (refd)

Rathanamalah d/o Shunmugam v Chia Kok Hoong [2018] 4 SLR 159 (refd)

Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100; [2007] 4 SLR 100 (refd)

Tiong Sze Yin Serene v HC Surgical Specialists Ltd [2020] SGHC 201 (refd)

Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57 (refd)

Facts

The plaintiff (“Ms Tiong”) and the defendant (“Dr Chan”) started an intimate relationship in January 2017. At that time, Dr Chan was a senior consultant psychiatrist at the Department of Psychiatry of the Singapore General Hospital. During their relationship, Dr Chan gave Ms Tiong Xanax tablets to help her cope with her anxiety.

Sometime in April 2018, Ms Tiong discovered WhatsApp messages in Dr Chan's mobile phone between him and his good friend, Dr Julian Ong Kian Peng. The WhatsApp messages revealed that Dr Chan was unfaithful and had been engaging in multiple sexual relationships with other women. The relationship between Ms Tiong and Dr Chan rapidly went south and came to an end in May 2018.

Ms Tiong claimed that Dr Chan acted in breach of his duty of care to her as his de facto patient when he gave her Xanax tablets. Alternatively, Ms Tiong relied on the rule in Wilkinson v Downton[1897] 2 QB 57 (“Wilkinson”). Ms Tiong argued that Dr Chan had induced her to enter into and/or continue with their relationship by intentionally informing her that “he was committed to having a long-term and exclusive sexual relationship with her” (“the Statement”). According to Ms Tiong, Dr Chan had intended to cause her psychiatric harm by making the Statement which he knew to be false.

Legislation referred to

Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) s 216A(2)

Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (2020 Rev Ed)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 385

Poisons Act (Cap 234, 1999 Rev Ed) Schedule

Ong Ying Ping (Ong Ying Ping Esq) for the plaintiff;

Chew Ming Hsien Rebecca, Lim Wee Teck DarrenandBenedict Tedjopranoto (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) for the defendant.

19 July 2022

Judgment reserved.

Tan Siong Thye J:

Introduction

1 The defendant, Dr Chan Herng Nieng (“Dr Chan”), is a psychiatrist with his own psychiatry practice at Capital Mindhealth Clinic. He has been practising medicine for more than 17 years.

2 The plaintiff, Ms Serene Tiong Sze Yin (“Ms Tiong”), is a Senior Business Development Manager in Precious Medical Centre. She met Dr Chan at a social event in or around 21 December 2016. They soon started an intimate relationship in early January 2017. At or around the end of April 2018, the relationship took a dramatic turn for the worse after Ms Tiong discovered WhatsApp messages in Dr Chan's mobile phone which revealed that he had been unfaithful. The relationship rapidly went south and Dr Chan decided to end the relationship at the end of May 2018.

3 From the time they first met in December 2016 to the end of their relationship in May 2018, Dr Chan was a senior consultant psychiatrist at the Department of Psychiatry of the Singapore General Hospital (“SGH”).

4 This case is, at its core, a lover's spat. After the relationship of Ms Tiong and Dr Chan came to an end, the actions taken by Ms Tiong resulted in, among others, police investigations against her for attempted extortion. Ms Tiong also complained to the Singapore Medical Council (“SMC”) against Dr Chan and his good friend, Dr Julian Ong Kian Peng (“Dr Ong”). Dr Ong, in turn, sued Ms Tiong for defamation. When Dr Chan spurned Ms Tiong's love she started a campaign of revenge against Dr Chan and Dr Ong as she concluded that they treated women like sex trophies.

5 Ms Tiong claims that when she and Dr Chan were in a relationship, Dr Chan acted in breach of his duty of care to her as his de facto patient when he gave her Xanax, an addictive drug, which was classified as poison under the Poisons Act (Cap 234, 1999 Rev Ed) (“the Poisons Act”). Ms Tiong claims that she suffered side effects from consuming Xanax and became addicted to Xanax.

6 Ms Tiong claims a further and/or alternative cause of action under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton[1897] 2 QB 57 (“Wilkinson”) for the psychiatric harm Dr Chan allegedly caused to her. She alleges that Dr Chan had told her that he was committed to a long-term and exclusive sexual relationship with her. Subsequently, Ms Tiong suffered a mental and emotional breakdown when she discovered that Dr Chan was having sexual relations with other married women during their relationship.

Background to the dispute

The relationship between Ms Tiong and...