Tokio Marine Life Insurance Singapore Ltd v Tay Tiang Choo

• Judge: Jasbendar Kaur
• Judgment Date: 17 November 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 258
• Citation: [2021] SGDC 258
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 15 December 2021
• Docket Number: District Court/PHA No. 70002 of 2020 (Summons No. 1433 of 2021)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Lauw Yu An, Nicholas Lynwood & Mr Yong Yi Xiang (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Chey Cheng Chwen Anthony (Chey LLC) (appointed pursuant to the grant of provisional grant of aid under section 8 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act),
• Subject Matter: Contempt of court,Civil contempt
• Hearing Date: 19 July 2021,17 June 2021,30 July 2021

District Judge Jasbendar Kaur: Introduction

Summons No. 1433 of 2021 in PHA OS No. 70002 of 2020 was taken out on 8 April 2021 by the Applicant, Tokio Marine Life Insurance Singapore Ltd, for an Order of Committal against the Respondent, Tay Tiang Choo for failing to comply with two court orders: DC/ORC/70002/2020: an interim stop publication order and an interim notification order granted under sections 16A and 16B of the Protection from Harassment Act (Act 14 of 2014) (the “POHA”) on 2 November 2020 (the “Interim Order”); and DC/ORC 652/2021: a stop publication order and a correction order granted under sections 15A and 15B of the POHA on 10 February 2020 (the “Final Order”).

These orders concern the application made by the Applicant to stop the Respondent and her representatives and/or agents from publishing false statements of fact in relation to the Applicant and to publish a correction notice on her Facebook and Tik Tok accounts and to forward the correction notice to the persons and entities to whom the Respondent had forwarded the false statements of fact.

Pursuant to the leave granted by the court on 31 March 2021 (DC/ SUM 1164/2021), the Applicant filed an application for the Respondent to be committed to prison or fined for her contempt of court. On 19 July 2021, I found the Respondent guilty of contempt of court as I was satisfied beyond reason doubt that she had (i) repeatedly and deliberately refused to comply with the Order of Court DC/ORC/70002/2020 and (ii) deliberately refused to fully comply with the Order of Court DC/ORC 652/2021 and I sentenced her to 4 weeks’ imprisonment. The Respondent appealed against my decision on 2 August 2021

Background Facts

The Respondent had purchased two life policies with the Applicant - TM Retirement (LP) Policy No. XXX (TM R Policy) and the TM FlexiAssurance Policy No. XXX (TM FA Policy). A dispute between the parties arose in May 2018 when the Respondent applied to purchase the TM FA Policy through her agent. When the application was made, an internal written warning was triggered to alert her agent that her TM R Policy that she had purchased in 2012 had been “discontinued” when in fact it was still in-force, but the Non-Forfeiture Loan option had been activated against the policy’s surrender value due to missed premium payments. When this information was shared with the Respondent, she became upset, and she sought clarification in May 2018. The Applicant’s staff did attempt to assure the Respondent that the said policy was still in force and that the information in the internal alert was inaccurate, but the explanations were not accepted by the Respondent.

She then sent a letter to Tokio Marine Holdings Inc in Japan, wherein she accused the Applicant of committing “scam and fraud and in cheating my money by discontinued my policy” and she demanded “Compensation equivalent to paid premium till today” to be paid to her, failing which she would report the matter to the police. She also alleged that there were other victims of this scam and fraud. A detailed explanation with supporting documents was issued by the Applicant on 26 June 2018 but the Respondent was not appeased, and she proceeded to forward her complaint to the President of the Applicant’s Head Office, Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co Ltd on 11 July 2018. A copy of this letter was also forwarded to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (the “MAS”), Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Minister Indrani Rajah and Ms Amelia Ang from M/s Lee & Lee.

On 13 July 2018, the Applicant’s staff met the Respondent together with a third party at Amara Hotel. Parties managed to resolve the matter and the Applicant issued a letter dated 17 July 2018 to document the terms of the settlement. The said letter revealed that the Applicant had agreed to issue an apology for their service lapse and had offered shopping vouchers worth $890 as a token of appreciation and a gesture of goodwill. The letter also revealed that the Respondent had initially demanded $3000 as compensation.

Things were quiet until June 2019 when the Respondent learnt that her TM FA Policy that was issued on 2 April 2018 had lapsed due to repeated failed GIRO deductions from her DBS bank account in March and April 2019 due to there being insufficient funds. The Respondent insisted that the cancellation of the policy was erroneous as her bank account had sufficient funds during the relevant period and that the policy should not have been cancelled without first informing her. She claimed that she did not receive the lapse notification and that she only learnt of the cancellation when she made enquiries on her own. She then proceeded to demand a full refund of the premiums that she had paid for this policy as compensation. The Applicant rejected the Respondent’s request and countered that the Respondent was notified of all the unsuccessful deductions and the automatic lapse. They offered to reinstate her policy upon payment of the unpaid premiums.

The Respondent rejected the Applicant’s response. A meeting was then arranged on 23 August 2019 to explain to her in person why the TM FA Policy had lapsed and thereafter on 26 August 2019, a written explanation was issued to her to reiterate the Application’s position and the reinstatement option.

On 25 December 2019, the Respondent sent a complaint email to the General Manager and Head of Compliance of Tokio Marine Inc in Japan, which was copied to Minister Indranee Rajah, the MAS and the Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau (the “CPIB”). In this email, she called the Applicant’s staff “unethical, irresponsible, and unprofessional”. She also revealed that she had reported to her Member of Parliament and the MAS about the erroneous lapse action and the wrongful disclosure of her personal information by DBS to the Applicant and to the CPIB about the Applicant’s “irregular practices”. She demanded full compensation because of the “ruckuses that she had undergone” and the turmoil that she suffered and made it clear that she was not a “No Action Talk Only (NATO) woman”.

On 3 June 2020, she sent a letter to the Prime Minister’s Office (copied to Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Kiat, Minister Indranee Rajah and the MAS) wherein she alleged that the Applicant had obtained information from her personal bank account through an “illegal method”, and she further alleged that the Applicant “is playing a wait out game to bleed my policy out until it cannot sustain the premium anymore.” On 25 July 2020, she wrote to Tokio Marine Holdings Inc in Japan again, alleging that the Applicant was “like a scam company” and that she had been “scammed 99.999%”. She demanded $1 million compensation and threatened to go to the press and to publicise the matter on social media if she is not appropriately compensated. Thereafter, she issued the following emails: On 3 August 2020, her representative sent an email to Mr Taro Aso, Minister of Finance and Minister of State for Financial Services and the Financial Services Agency of Japan (copied to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Kiat, Minister Indranee Rajah, Minister Lawrence Wong, the MAS and the CPIB). In this letter, she repeated her allegations and demanded $1 million as compensation for the Applicant’s “incompetent staff, negligence, unethical twisting of events”. The Applicant responded on 8 August 2020 and demanded that she refrain from making public remarks or posting comments or statements that may be defamatory in nature to harass the Applicant; and On 25 August 2020, she sent an email to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Kiat and to the MAS alleging that the Applicant had acted “unprofessionally”, and that she is “dun cooperating…regardless they send me duress letter dated 18 Aug 2020”.

Thereafter, the Respondent uploaded various posts on her Facebook and Tik Tok accounts alleging that she had been cheated and defrauded by the Applicant.

On 30 October 2020, the Applicant filed the Ex Parte Summons under sections 15A, 15B, 16A and 16B of the POHA to stop the Respondent and her representatives and/or agents from publishing the following statements until the final determination on the basis that these were false statements of fact (the “Relevant Statements”): “The Applicant had wrongfully discontinued the Respondent’s insurance policies with the Applicant; The Applicant had scammed or cheated the Respondent; The Applicant had actively been lying to and misleading its customers regarding their policies, or otherwise being nonresponsive to customers’ inquiries or concerns about their policies; The Applicant is unprofessional and disrespectful to the Respondent and refuses to admit its mistakes; The Applicant had accessed the personal data and sensitive financial information of the Respondent without proper authorisation; The Applicant had committed commercial fraud; The Applicant was engaged in corrupt practices; The Applicant had sought to cover its dishonest and sharp business practices by offering money to customers or placing customers under duress; The Applicant will cancel their customers’ policies without justification or warning; and The Applicant is “bleeding out” the Respondent’s policy until she is no longer able to pay the premium.” They also sought an interim notification order to require the Respondent to publish a notification on her Facebook and Tik Tok accounts and to forward the same notification to the persons and entities to whom the Respondent had forwarded the Relevant Statements.

On 2 November 2020, the court found that there was prima facie evidence that the Relevant Statements were false statements of fact. The interim stop publication and interim notification order (the Interim Order) was granted which...