Wong Leng Si Rachel v Olivia Wu Su Han

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lewis Tan
• Judgment Date: 28 February 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGDC 42
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 1818 of 2021 (Summons No 132 of 2022)
• Year: 2022
• Published date: 05 March 2022
• Hearing Date: 07 February 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: Clarence Lun Yaodong (Fervent Chambers LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Quek Wen Jiang, Gerard (PD Legal LLC)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Discovery of documents,Affidavits,Whether the court has the discretion to make an order for discovery if the party has stated on affidavit that he/she no longer has power, custody or possession of the documents sought
• Citation: [2022] SGDC 42

Deputy Registrar Lewis Tan:

The Plaintiff, Ms Wong Leng Si Rachel, is a full-time social media influencer with a wide-ranging presence on the internet platform Instagram.¹ Sometime in December 2019, the Plaintiff became legally married to Mr Anders Aplin (“Mr Aplin”). The marriage, however, was short lived, and annulment proceedings were commenced in April 2020, and the marriage was legally annulled on or around March 2021.²

Around December 2020, while the annulment proceedings were still ongoing, Ms Olivia Wu Su Han (hereinafter “the Defendant”), a Singaporean citizen who also maintains her internet presence on Instagram,³ began posting several “Stories” on her Instagram account. These Stories were entitled “Cheaterof2020” and were targeted at the Plaintiff. In brief, they suggested that the Plaintiff had been unfaithful to Mr Aplin, and several accounts of such alleged conduct were also fleshed out in detail (collectively, “the Stories”).⁴

According to the Plaintiff, the Stories were defamatory and caused her to suffer damage to her reputation, standing and esteem. This was particularly damaging as the Plaintiff was a full-time social media influencer who was “largely dependent on her social media reputation, optics and image in order to attract and obtain business deals on partnerships … from which she relies on to earn her living”.⁵

In her Defence, the Defendant countered that the Stories were not defamatory because, amongst others, they were true in substance. This was because the Plaintiff had been intimate with at least two individuals, namely one Mr Han, who was the Plaintiff’s gym trainer, and Mr Wan, who was the emcee at the Plaintiff’s and Mr Aplin’s wedding.⁶

To bolster her defence, the Defendant took out the present summons for discovery, wherein she sought an order for the Plaintiff to disclose the following:⁷ correspondence exchanged between the Plaintiff and Mr Han from the date when the Plaintiff was in a romantic relationship with Mr Aplin up to April 2020 (ie, when the Plaintiff and Mr Aplin commenced annulment proceedings); correspondence exchanged between the Plaintiff and Mr Wan from the date when the Plaintiff was in a romantic relationship with Mr Aplin up to 27 August 2021 (ie, when the present Suit was commenced by the Plaintiff against the Defendant); and the Plaintiff’s diary entries (whether in hard copy or digital form) relating to Mr Wan from the date when the Plaintiff was in a romantic relationship with Mr Aplin up to 27 August 2021.

The Plaintiff resisted the Defendant’s discovery application, alleging that it was a “fishing expedition” designed to infringe upon her privacy and confidentiality.⁸ Counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr Clarence Lun Yaodong (“Mr Lun”) also submitted that as the Defendant did not know the Plaintiff prior to posting the Stories, the documents sought could not be materials from which she could base her defence of justification, and this accordingly “defeat[ed] the point of relevance and necessity”.⁹

In my view, there was little merit in the latter submission. As the Court of Appeal observed in Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal [2010] 1 SLR 52 (“Review Publishing”) at [134], a defendant that seeks to rely on the defence of justification needs “only prove that the substance or gist of the offending words … is true”. There is no added requirement that the defendant ought to have known the plaintiff prior to making said statements. In this respect, “[t]he alleged defamer’s lack of knowledge of the relevant fact at the time of defamation is irrelevant since malice does not defeat the defence of justification” (Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and others [2010] 3 SLR 110 (“Basil Anthony”) at [63]). So, in making out the defence of justification, there was no onus on the Defendant to also show that she knew, at the time of publishing the Stories, that the statements therein were true because of her personal knowledge of the Plaintiff or otherwise.

Turning then to consider the relevance and necessity of the documents sought, it was important to first consider the salient parts of the parties’ pleadings. As particularised in the Statement of Claim and Defence at paragraphs 15 and 10 respectively:

Statement of Claim

…

15. The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant’s Stories are untrue and defamatory to the Plaintiff. When read together with the title of “Cheaterof2020”, in their natural and ordinary meaning, and/or by way of innuendo, the Defendant’s Stories meant and/or were understood to mean: - a. The Plaintiff had committed infidelity on the day of her wedding, ie 27 December 2019; b. The Plaintiff had sexual relations with her wedding emcee, [Mr Wan]…, on her wedding night; c. The Plaintiff had no intention to marry her ex-husband, [Mr Aplin]; d. The Plaintiff had caused more than one person’s life to be ruined; e. The Plaintiff was promiscuous; f. The Plaintiff was mentally unwell and that she should seek help; g. The Plaintiff does not have morals; h. The Plaintiff will not pass a character check by Mediacorp; and i. The Plaintiff was shameless.

Defence

…

10. The Defendant avers that the Words, when read together with the title “Cheaterof2020”, in their natural and ordinary meaning bore and/or were understood to bear the following meaning instead: -

Particulars

(a) The Plaintiff had been unfaithful to her ex-husband, Mr. [Aplin], in the course of their romantic relationship. (b) As a result of the Plaintiff’s unfaithfulness, Mr. [Aplin] had suffered emotionally. (c) The Plaintiff’s unfaithfulness shows that the Plaintiff lacks empathy and morals. (d) The Defendant was appalled by the Plaintiff’s unfaithfulness.

As can be seen from the above extracts, while the Plaintiff and Defendant disagreed on the precise meaning of the Stories, they were in agreement that the Stories suggested that the Plaintiff had been unfaithful to Mr Aplin. According to the Defendant, even if the contents of the Stories were defamatory, she was entitled to rely on the defence of justification as the contents of the Stories were true in substance and in fact:¹⁰ 16. In this regard, the Defendant avers that if the natural and ordinary meaning of the Words, as pleaded at paragraph 10 above, are defamatory (which is denied), they were true in substance and in fact: -

Particulars

(a) The Plaintiff had been unfaithful to Mr. [Aplin] while she was in a romantic relationship with Mr. [Aplin]. During this period and to the best of the Defendant’s knowledge, the Plaintiff had been more than intimate with at least two individuals. (b) Pending further discovery, the Defendant avers that during the said period, the Plaintiff had been more than intimate with, amongst others, a Mr. Han and Mr … Wan. Mr Han was the Plaintiff’s gym trainer. Mr … Wan is the Plaintiff’s friend. Mr … Wan was also the emcee of the Plaintiff’s and Mr [Aplin’s] wedding celebrations. (c) Mr. Han was engaged in intimate and sexual conversations through text messages on Telegram with the Plaintiff. The aforesaid conversations were exchanged when the Plaintiff was romantically involved with Mr [Aplin]. Screenshots of the said conversations are annexed at Annex A. (d) On the night of the Plaintiff’s and Mr [Aplin’s] wedding celebrations, the Plaintiff had spent the night with Mr. … Wan. (e) The Plaintiff had been intimate and had feelings for Mr. … Wan when the Plaintiff was romantically involved with Mr [Aplin]. In this regard, and pending discovery, the Defendant will rely on an intimate photograph of the Plaintiff with Mr … Wan and the Plaintiff’s diary entry which are annexed at Annex B. (f) As a result of the Plaintiff’s unfaithfulness, Mr. [Aplin] had suffered emotionally.

In my judgment, the documents sought were plainly relevant as they would go towards establishing whether the substance or gist of the Stories was true (Review Publishing at [134]) and would thus adversely affect or support either the Plaintiff’s or the Defendant’s case, especially as regards the merits of the defence of justification: see O 24 r 5(3) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Ed) (“ROC”). For much the same reasons, such documents would also be necessary for the fair disposition of the matter: O...