By Mark Teng, Executive Director (Profile) & Lusina Gao, Incoming Trainee ‘24

This is an interim case update on the defamation suit between the plaintiff in District Court Suit No. 1784 of 2019 (hereafter referred to as “DC/1784”), Liew Wei Yen Ashley (“Ashley”), and the defendant Soh Rui Yong (“Soh”).

Over the recent weekend, on 16 January 2021, an article was published in the Lian He Zao Bao (“Zao Bao”). Zao Bao is the largest Singaporean Chinese-language newspaper with a daily circulation of about 200,000. If you are fluent in Chinese, the original article can be accessed on the Zao Bao website here.

A quick summary of the saga is as follows. As of the date of writing, 8 days of trial have already elapsed in DC/1784 between national marathoners Ashley and Soh. At present, Soh still has 2 more witnesses who have yet to take the stand.

In an unusual turn of events, Soh made an application to seek for the recusal of the Judge in District Court Summons No. 3822 of 2020 (hereafter referred to as the “Recusal Application”). Soh’s grounds for the Recusal Application were, inter alia, that the Judge had interfered with his lawyer’s cross-examination of Ashley, was apparently biased against him, and applied “double standards” in respect of certain interlocutory applications. Allegations that the judiciary is biased are few and far between in Singapore. Ashley contested the Recusal Application and disagreed with Soh’s suggestion that the Judge should recuse herself.

News of the Recusal Application was first reported by Today Online on 13 November 2020, in the article titled “Marathoner Soh Rui Yong alleges fellow athlete’s libel suit against him is biased, should step aside”. The Today Online article can be accessed on their website here.

Soh’s Recusal Application was heard in chambers on 3 December 2020 and the decision was reserved. On 14 December 2020, the Judge handed down a 65-page written judgement (the “DC Judgement”). Costs to be agreed or taxed has been ordered against Soh for making the Recusal Application. The DC Judgement is a public document and may be accessed here.

[Start of Zao Bao Article Translation]

[16 January 2021] Two-time SEA Games Marathon champion Soh got himself into a libel lawsuit and accused the Trial Judge of “double standards” in favor of Ashley, the plaintiff in the suit, who is also a marathon athlete. Soh applied for the Judge to avoid continuing to hear the case (to recuse herself), but this request was rejected.

Lee Li Choon, a District Judge of the State Courts of Singapore (the “Judge”), pointed out in her judgment issued last month that Soh’s request for the replacement of the judge was due to the Court’s previous decisions against the defendant, such as not allowing him to submit non-key new evidence. However, these decisions (pertaining to those on new evidence) were affirmed on appeal, thus Soh should accept the court’s decision.

As for the accusation that the Judge excessively interfered with the Soh’s lawyer’s cross-examination during the trial, the Judge refuted that any objective bystander would know that her intervention at that time was reasonable and for the purposes of not wasting time, and was not favouring any one party.

The 2015 SEA Games Marathon (the “Marathon”) was the fuse that led to the two marathoners’ face-off in Court. During the Marathon, 11 of the 12 competitors missed a turning point in East Coast Park, while Ashley was the only one who did not miss the turning point. Soh eventually emerged as the champion of the Marathon while Ashley finished 8th. However, reports of Ashley giving up an opportunity at a medal and his act of slowing down to wait for his opponents were widely spread, winning him praise and the Pierre de Coubertin World Fair Play Trophy issued by the International Olympic (Fair Play) Committee in 2016.

However, in an online public article in October 2018, Soh said that Ashley did not slow down or stop in the Marathon. Ashley later sued Soh for defamation. The libel case was (part) heard by Judge Lee Li Choon in September last year. After 8 days, the case temporarily ended and will continue to be heard sometime this year. During the break, Soh applied to change the Judge. After consideration, Judge Lee Li Choon issued a written judgment rejecting and dismissing Soh’s application.

In her judgment, the Judge pointed out that during the first tranche of the trial, the two parties made several different applications. Ashley’s application to amend the (statement of) claim and to file a supplementary affidavit (of evidence in chief) was allowed, while Soh’s request for the admission of new evidence, such as Soh’s Global Positioning System (GPS) record during the race, was rejected by the Judge. Soh argued that the Judge’s approval of Ashley’s applications and rejection of his applications was tantamount to applying “double standards”.

The Judge explained that the reasons why she did not allow Soh’s applications included Soh’s failure to clearly explain why the new evidence could not have been presented earlier, and why it was related to the key issues of the case. Moreover, after hearing Soh’s appeal on the GPS, the High Court similarly rejected Soh’s appeal. Thus, Soh’s accusation of the Judge having “double standards” could not be established. 

Soh also complained that the Judge had interfered with his lawyer’s cross-examination of Ashley during the first three days of the trial. The Judge refuted that at that time, Soh’s lawyer had repeatedly questioned Ashley about the distance and time when he slowed down during the Marathon, even though Ashley had repeatedly expressed that he did not wear a GPS watch during the race and all the answers he could give were mere estimations. The Judge said that if the defendant wanted to cite evidence in this respect, he would have to find expert witnesses to testify, rather than cross-examine Ashley. Yet, Soh’s lawyer kept going around and around the same point, thus the Judge had no choice but to step in.

The Judge explained that she had given enough room for cross-examination to Soh’s lawyer, but as a trial Judge, she must also ensure that the trial is fair and effective. Her intervention is not partial to any party, thus there is no need for her to avoid continuing the trial of the case.

[End of Zao Bao Article Translation]

Please note that we assume no responsibility for the accuracy of the translation. We make this translation purely for informational purposes only and with the caveat that all statements and opinions contained in the translation above are not ours, but of the author of the Zao Bao Article, save our comments in brackets which are made for clarification of matters that may have been lost in translation.

As the decision in SUM 3822 is currently still on appeal, we will refrain from commenting on it. The appeal is likely be heard sometime this year in 2021.

Nothing in the aforesaid post or the translation should be construed as legal advice or be referenced thereto by implication because every case is decided on its own unique facts. If you have a legal issue, drop us an e-mail at ask@that.legal. We will be happy to discuss it with you. #LetsTalkAboutYourChallenge