WONG LENG SI RACHEL v OLIVIA WU SU HAN

"The only test in this application is that of relevance, and I agree with the court below that the defendant has adequately shown that the documents sought are relevant and material for the trial." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 11

Case Information

• Citation: [2022] SGHC 151 (Para 0)
• Court: General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore (Para 0)
• Case Number: Registrar Appeal from State Courts No 10 of 2022 (Para 0)
• Coram: Choo Han Teck J (Para 0)
• Hearing Dates: 23 May 2022; 13 June 2022 (Para 0)
• Judgment Date: 28 June 2022 (Para 0)
• Area of Law: Civil Procedure — Discovery — Specific Discovery (Para 0)
• Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff: Clarence Lun Yaodong (Fervent Chambers LLC) (Para 0)
• Counsel for the Respondent/Defendant: Gerard Quek Wen Jiang and Glenn Chua Ze Xuan (PDLegal LLC) (Para 0)

Summary

This was an appeal from orders for specific discovery in a civil dispute arising out of allegedly defamatory Instagram posts. The plaintiff challenged the discovery orders made below, but the High Court held that the documents sought were relevant and material to the trial, and that the defendant had shown enough to justify production. The appeal was dismissed. (Para 2) (Para 11) (Para 14)

The dispute centred on correspondence and diary entries relating to two men, Chen Xuan Han and Alan Wan, as well as diary entries from June 2018 to June 2020. The plaintiff argued that she had already sworn she did not have the documents in her power, custody, or control, and that the application was scandalous and vexatious. The court rejected those objections, holding that the plaintiff had to produce the diaries rather than merely assert that they were blank. (Para 9) (Para 10) (Para 12)

Choo Han Teck J emphasised that the governing test was relevance, and that where documents are expected to exist and are relevant to the issues at trial, they should be produced. The judge also noted that the existence of some material already produced made the request for further discovery less like a fishing expedition. Costs were reserved for later if the parties could not agree. (Para 11) (Para 13) (Para 14)

Why Did the Court Say the Only Test Was Relevance in This Specific Discovery Appeal?

The court framed the appeal as a narrow challenge to a specific discovery order, not as a determination of the merits of the underlying defamation action. Choo Han Teck J expressly said that it was not for him to decide the merits, because the matter before him was only the appeal against the order for specific discovery made below. That framing mattered because it confined the inquiry to whether the requested documents met the discovery threshold. (Para 3)

"It is not for me to decide on the merits of the action since this is only an appeal against the order for specific discovery against the plaintiff, an order made by the court below, and is now the subject of the appeal before me." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 3

Within that procedural frame, the judge identified relevance as the governing standard. He stated in direct terms that the only test in the application was relevance, and he agreed with the court below that the defendant had adequately shown that the documents sought were relevant and material for trial. That statement is the core ratio of the decision: if the documents are relevant and material, specific discovery may be ordered. (Para 11)

"The only test in this application is that of relevance, and I agree with the court below that the defendant has adequately shown that the documents sought are relevant and material for the trial." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 11

The court’s reasoning also shows that relevance was assessed against the pleaded issues and the evidential context already before the court. The judge did not treat the application as an abstract request for private material; rather, he considered whether the documents could shed light on the matters in dispute at trial. On that basis, the relevance threshold was satisfied. (Para 8) (Para 11)

What Were the Facts Behind the Instagram Posts and the Discovery Request?

The factual setting was a defamation-related dispute arising from Instagram statements posted on 21 December 2020 under the title “Cheatersof2020”. The posts were made almost a year after the plaintiff’s marriage to Ander Alpin, known as Anders, in December 2019. The plaintiff alleged that the statements conveyed that she had committed infidelity on her wedding day and had sexual relations with Alan Wan. (Para 2)

"The statements in question were posted on 21 December 2020, almost a year after the plaintiff’s marriage to Ander Alpin (“Anders”) in December 2019, and were published under the title, “Cheatersof2020”." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 2

The defendant’s discovery application focused on materials that might bear on those allegations. Deputy Registrar Lewis Tan ordered discovery of all correspondence between the plaintiff and Chen Xuan Han, all correspondence between the plaintiff and Alan Wan, and all diary entries relating to Alan Wan from June 2018 to June 2020. Those categories of documents were treated as potentially relevant to the truth or falsity of the pleaded sting of the publication. (Para 9)

"Deputy Registrar Lewis Tan ordered discovery of the following: (a) All correspondence between the plaintiff and one Chen Xuan Han; (b) all correspondence between the plaintiff and Alan Wan; and (c) all the plaintiff’s diary entries relating to Alan Wan from June 2018 to June 2020." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 9

The plaintiff’s response was that she had no such documents in her power, custody, or control. The judge treated that assertion as insufficient to defeat discovery, because the issue was not whether the plaintiff claimed the entries were absent, but whether the defendant was entitled to inspect the diaries for the relevant period. The court’s approach therefore turned on production of the actual documents, not on the plaintiff’s characterization of them. (Para 10)

"Mr Lun’s main argument is that the plaintiff had already sworn on oath that she does not have the documents in her power, custody, or control." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 10

How Did the Court Deal with the Plaintiff’s Argument That She Did Not Have the Documents?

The plaintiff’s principal objection was that she had already sworn on oath that she did not have the documents in her power, custody, or control. The court rejected the idea that this alone answered the discovery request. Choo Han Teck J explained that it was not enough to say that the plaintiff did not have the kind of entries the defendant was seeking in her diary or diaries, because the defendant wanted to see what was in the diaries during the relevant period. (Para 10)

"It is not enough to say that the plaintiff does not have the kind of entries that the defendant is seeking in her diary (or diaries). The defendant wants to see what is in the diaries during the relevant period." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 10

The judge went further and made the point in especially direct language: the plaintiff had to produce the diaries and not merely say that the diaries were blank. That observation is important because it shows that the court was not persuaded by a bare denial of incriminating content. The discovery obligation extended to the diaries themselves, so that the opposing party could inspect them and test the plaintiff’s position. (Para 10)

"The plaintiff has to produce the diaries and not just say that the diaries are blank." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 10

The court also noted that the plaintiff’s reliance on Soh Lup Chee v Seow Boon Cheong and another [2002] 1 SLR(R) 604 did not assist her. The judge said expressly that the case did not help the plaintiff at all. Although the excerpt does not set out the earlier case’s reasoning in detail, the present judgment makes clear that it was not accepted as a basis for resisting production. (Para 10)

"My decision in Soh Lup Chee v Seow Boon Cheong and another [2002] 1 SLR(R) 604 relied upon by Mr Lun, does not help the plaintiff at all." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 10

Why Did the Court Consider the Defendant’s Evidence Enough to Justify Discovery?

The defendant supported the discovery application with material that suggested the existence of relevant entries and correspondence. The judge referred to exhibits produced by the defendant and said there was reason to believe that similar other entries might be found. He also observed that if the diaries were produced but no such entries were found, that would strengthen the plaintiff’s case at trial. This reasoning shows that the court saw discovery as a means of clarifying the factual dispute, not prejudging it. (Para 11)

"From the exhibits that the defendant has produced, there is reason to believe that similar other entries may be found, and if the diaries are produced but no such entries are found, then surely that should strengthen the plaintiff’s case at trial." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 11

The exhibits included a copy of what appeared to be a journal entry said to have come from the plaintiff’s diary, professing her love for Alan Wan. The judge also noted a photograph attached by counsel, claimed to show the plaintiff lying on a man’s chest. These materials were part of the evidential basis for the discovery request and helped explain why the court considered the requested documents relevant and material. (Para 8)

"Similarly, counsel appended a copy of what appears to be a journal entry that counsel says was from the plaintiff’s diary, professing her love for Alan Wan." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 8

"A copy of a photograph was also attached, claiming to be that of the plaintiff lying on a man’s chest." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 8

The judge also remarked that these exhibits should not have been in the Defence, but that they were properly attached to the affidavit supporting specific discovery. That observation indicates a procedural distinction: while the materials may have been misplaced in the Defence, they were still usable for the limited purpose of showing why discovery should be ordered. (Para 8)

"These should not have been in the Defence, but were properly attached to the affidavit supporting specific discovery." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 8

How Did the Court Respond to the Claim That the Application Was Scandalous, Vexatious, or a Fishing Expedition?

The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s application was scandalous and vexatious. The court rejected that submission. Choo Han Teck J explained that the evidence sought may indeed prove to be scandalous if true, but it is scandalous only because of the nature of the subject matter of the defamation. In other words, the potentially embarrassing character of the material did not make the discovery request improper. (Para 12)

"The evidence sought may prove to be scandalous — if true, obviously, but it is scandalous only because of the nature of the subject matter of the defamation." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 12

The judge also addressed the “fishing expedition” complaint. He said that the request was not a mere fishing expedition if fish had in fact been spotted. That metaphor was used to explain that once there is already some evidential basis for believing relevant material exists, a request for further discovery is not objectionable merely because it seeks to uncover more. (Para 13)

"it is not a mere fishing expedition if fish has in fact been spotted." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 13

He then articulated the broader principle: if there are documents that one might expect the other party to have in his power to produce, and those documents are relevant to the issues at trial, then they must be produced. That statement ties together the relevance test, the expectation of possession or control, and the obligation to produce. It is the practical rule the court applied to the facts before it. (Para 13)

"And generally, that means that if there are documents that one might expect the other party to have in his power to produce, and that are relevant to the issues at trial, then they must be produced." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 13

What Did the Court Decide About the Lower Courts’ Orders?

The procedural history was that Deputy Registrar Lewis Tan made the specific discovery orders, and District Judge Victor Yeo affirmed them on appeal. The present proceedings were then a further appeal to the High Court. The High Court did not disturb the lower courts’ approach; instead, it agreed that the requested documents were relevant and material and that the orders should stand. (Para 9) (Para 11)

"The plaintiff appealed to District Judge Victor Yeo but he affirmed DR Tan’s orders." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 9

The judge’s conclusion was succinct and decisive: the appeal was dismissed. He also indicated that costs would be dealt with later if the parties could not agree. The outcome therefore left the specific discovery orders intact and required the plaintiff to comply. (Para 14)

"This appeal is dismissed." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 14

"I will hear the question of costs at a later date if parties are unable to agree on costs." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 14

That disposition is consistent with the court’s earlier reasoning. Once relevance was established and the plaintiff’s objections were rejected, there was no basis to interfere with the orders below. The judgment therefore reinforces the principle that appellate intervention in specific discovery matters will be limited where the lower court has correctly applied the relevance standard. (Para 11) (Para 13) (Para 14)

What Was the Court’s Treatment of the Parties’ Substantive Positions on Defamation?

Although the appeal was about discovery, the court briefly referred to the underlying defamation dispute because the nature of the pleaded sting informed relevance. Counsel for the defendant submitted that the words pleaded by the plaintiff were not defamatory and should be understood as meaning that the plaintiff was unfaithful to Anders, causing him emotional suffering; that by her infidelity she lacked empathy and morals; and that the defendant was appalled by the plaintiff’s unfaithfulness. Those submissions show why the defendant considered the correspondence and diary entries relevant to the truth or meaning of the publication. (Para 8)

"Mr Quek, counsel for the defendant, submits that the words pleaded by the plaintiff are not defamatory, and should be understood as (a) the plaintiff was unfaithful to Anders, causing him to suffer emotionally; (b) by her infidelity, the plaintiff “lacks empathy and morals”; and (c) that the defendant was appalled by the plaintiff’s unfaithfulness." — Per Choo Han Teck J, Para 8

The court did not decide the defamation merits, but it accepted that the discovery sought was tied to those issues. The requested documents could bear on whether the plaintiff had the relationships or conduct alleged, and thus on the factual basis of the pleaded meanings. That is why the judge treated the documents as relevant and material for trial rather than as collateral or oppressive. (Para 3) (Para 11)

In practical terms, the judgment shows that where the pleaded meaning of allegedly defamatory words turns on a person’s conduct or relationships, documents reflecting those matters may be discoverable if they are likely to illuminate the issues at trial. The court did not need to resolve the truth of the allegations at this stage; it only needed to determine whether the documents could assist in resolving them. (Para 8) (Para 11)

Why Does This Case Matter for Specific Discovery Practice in Singapore?

This case matters because it restates, in a concise but forceful way, that relevance is the central test for specific discovery. The court did not require proof that the documents would definitively prove the defendant’s case; it was enough that they were relevant and material to the trial. That is a practical and important reminder for litigators seeking or resisting discovery. (Para 11)

It also matters because the court rejected the notion that a party can defeat discovery simply by asserting that the documents do not exist or are blank. The judge’s insistence that the plaintiff produce the diaries themselves underscores that discovery is about inspection, not just assurances. Where the opposing party has reason to believe relevant entries may exist, the documents must be produced so that the issue can be tested properly. (Para 10) (Para 13)

Finally, the case is useful because it clarifies that sensitive or embarrassing material is not immune from discovery merely because it may be scandalous. If the material is relevant to the issues in dispute, its potentially uncomfortable nature does not bar production. For practitioners, the case is a reminder to ground discovery applications in concrete evidential material and to focus on relevance rather than rhetoric. (Para 12) (Para 13)

Cases Referred To

Source Documents

• Original Judgment — Singapore Courts
• Archived Copy (PDF) — Litt Law CDN

This article analyses [2022] SGHC 151 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.