Case Details
- Citation: [2022] SGHC 151
- Title: Wong Leng Si Rachel v Wu Su Han Olivia
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Case Type: Registrar Appeal from State Courts
- Registrar Appeal No: No 10 of 2022
- Date of Judgment: 28 June 2022
- Judges: Choo Han Teck J
- Hearing Dates: 23 May 2022; 13 June 2022
- Plaintiff/Applicant (Appellant): Wong Leng Si Rachel
- Defendant/Respondent: Wu Su Han Olivia
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure — Discovery (Specific Discovery)
- Statutes Referenced: (Not specified in the provided extract)
- Cases Cited: Soh Lup Chee v Seow Boon Cheong and another [2002] 1 SLR(R) 604
- Judgment Length: 7 pages, 1,670 words
Summary
This High Court decision concerns an appeal against orders for specific discovery made in the context of a defamation action arising from Instagram posts. The plaintiff, Wong Leng Si Rachel, sued the defendant, Wu Su Han Olivia, over allegedly defamatory statements published under the title “Cheatersof2020”. The dispute before the High Court was not the merits of defamation, but whether the defendant was entitled to obtain specific categories of documents from the plaintiff through discovery.
The High Court (Choo Han Teck J) dismissed the appeal and upheld the discovery orders made by the Deputy Registrar and affirmed by a District Judge. The court held that the documents sought were relevant and material to issues at trial, and that the plaintiff’s objections—particularly that she had already sworn she did not have the relevant documents—were insufficient. The court also rejected the argument that the discovery application was scandalous and vexatious, reasoning that any scandal stemmed from the nature of the defamation allegations rather than from the discovery application itself.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiff described herself as a “full-time social media influencer, actress, model and host”, maintaining an Instagram account with a claimed follower base of around 41,400 (or later 1,880 followers, as pleaded). The defendant also maintained an Instagram account and posted statements which the plaintiff alleged were defamatory. The posts in question were made on 21 December 2020, nearly a year after the plaintiff’s marriage to Ander Alpin (“Anders”) in December 2019. The posts were published under the title “Cheatersof2020”.
Although the defendant’s pleadings were sparse, counsel explained that she worked for a pharmaceutical company selling stents for heart procedures and was also a part-time nurse. The plaintiff’s case, as pleaded, was that the defendant’s Instagram statements were understood to impute that the plaintiff committed infidelity on her wedding day, and further that she had sexual relations with a person identified as Alan Wan, the master of ceremonies at the wedding. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant imputed that she had no intention of marrying Anders (the plaintiff’s ex-husband), and that the defendant’s statements suggested she had ruined “more than one person’s life”, was promiscuous, mentally unwell, immoral, and would not pass a Mediacorp character check. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant had called her “shameless”.
In the course of the appeal, the High Court observed that the pleadings were difficult to interpret, mixing “Instagram-speak” with emphasis and formatting that did not assist clarity. The court highlighted examples where counsel’s emphasis in pleadings was unnecessary and where the pleaded content did not translate cleanly into intelligible English. When asked what exactly the defamatory content was, counsel pointed to a line in paragraph 12 of the Statement of Claim: “WHICH KIND OF BEAST FKS THE BRIDE ON HER WEDDING DAY?????”. The court removed counsel’s added emphasis and treated the underlying allegation as the relevant pleaded statement.
Beyond the pleaded statements, the discovery dispute turned on documentary material that the defendant sought to obtain from the plaintiff. The defendant’s discovery application sought, in substance, correspondence between the plaintiff and (i) one Chen Xuan Han, (ii) one Alan Wan, and (iii) the plaintiff’s diary entries relating to Alan Wan from June 2018 to June 2020. The Deputy Registrar ordered discovery of these categories. The District Judge affirmed the Deputy Registrar’s orders. The plaintiff then appealed to the High Court.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issue was whether the defendant was entitled to specific discovery from the plaintiff. In particular, the court had to determine whether the categories of documents sought were relevant and material to the issues that would arise at trial in the defamation action. This required the court to assess the relevance of the correspondence and diary entries to the pleaded imputations and the defendant’s position.
A second issue was whether the plaintiff’s sworn position that she did not have the documents in her power, custody, or control was sufficient to defeat the discovery application. The plaintiff argued that because she had already sworn on oath that she did not have the documents, the defendant’s application should fail. The High Court had to decide whether such an assertion, without producing the diaries or correspondence, could be treated as an adequate response to a specific discovery application.
A third issue concerned the plaintiff’s procedural objection that the discovery application was “scandalous and vexatious”. The plaintiff contended that the nature of the subject matter—intimate and potentially lurid allegations—made the discovery application improper. The court had to consider whether the discovery sought was inherently abusive or whether, notwithstanding the subject matter, the application was properly grounded in relevance to the trial issues.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
Choo Han Teck J began by emphasising that the appeal was limited to the discovery orders, not the merits of the defamation claim. The court therefore focused on the procedural threshold for discovery: whether the documents sought were relevant and material. The judge also noted that the narrative of the pleadings was not clear, partly due to the use of social media language and partly due to counsel’s failure to translate the content into clear English. While this did not decide the defamation claim, it contextualised why the court needed to identify the real issues for discovery.
On the relevance question, the court accepted that the defendant had adequately shown that the documents sought were relevant and material for trial. The judge reasoned that the defendant’s discovery request was not speculative in the abstract. The defendant had produced exhibits that suggested there were likely diary entries and correspondence within the relevant time period. The court’s approach was pragmatic: if the diaries and correspondence were produced and no relevant entries were found, that could strengthen the plaintiff’s case at trial. Conversely, if relevant entries existed, they would be probative of the issues raised by the defamation pleadings.
In addressing the plaintiff’s argument that she had already sworn she did not have the documents, the court rejected the submission as inadequate. The judge held that it was not enough for the plaintiff to say that she did not have the “kind of entries” the defendant sought. The defendant’s request was specifically for the diaries during a defined period and for correspondence with identified persons. The court therefore expected the plaintiff to produce the diaries and correspondence (or at least the relevant records) rather than merely assert that the diaries were blank or that the relevant entries were absent.
The judge’s reasoning reflects a core principle of discovery: a party resisting discovery cannot avoid disclosure by making conclusory assertions about what documents do not exist or what entries might be absent. Discovery is designed to test and expose the documentary reality behind pleadings. In this case, the plaintiff’s position that she did not have the relevant entries did not negate the relevance of producing the diaries for the specified period. The court therefore treated the plaintiff’s sworn statement as insufficient to defeat an otherwise properly framed discovery request.
In rejecting reliance on precedent, the court considered the plaintiff’s citation of Soh Lup Chee v Seow Boon Cheong and another [2002] 1 SLR(R) 604. The judge concluded that the case did not help the plaintiff. While the extract does not set out the precise holding in Soh Lup Chee, the High Court’s comment indicates that the plaintiff’s attempt to use that authority to justify non-production was misplaced. The High Court’s focus remained on the relevance and materiality of the documents sought, and on the insufficiency of a bare denial without production.
On the “scandalous and vexatious” objection, the court adopted a measured view. Choo Han Teck J accepted that the material sought might be scandalous if the allegations were true. However, the court reasoned that the scandal arises from the subject matter of the defamation dispute itself—namely, the intimate nature of the imputations—rather than from the discovery application as a procedural step. The plaintiff had chosen to sue; the defendant sought discovery to justify her statements. The court therefore held that the discovery application was neither scandalous nor vexatious in itself.
The judge also addressed the broader concern that discovery applications can sometimes be “fishing expeditions”. The court acknowledged the principle that a party should not be permitted to seek discovery without good reasons. However, it explained that the principle is satisfied where there are documents that one would expect the other party to have in their power to produce and where those documents are relevant to issues at trial. The court’s analogy was that this was not mere fishing if “fish has in fact been spotted”. In other words, the defendant had produced samples of relevant material, supporting the inference that further relevant entries or correspondence might exist.
Finally, the court dealt with procedural conduct in the pleadings and affidavits. The judge noted that counsel for the defendant had exhibited photocopies of text messages depicting lurid details, but that the exhibits did not show who the recipient was, and that the person’s name appeared inconsistent (Han and Chen interchangeably). The judge also observed that a journal entry and photographs were attached, with the defendant claiming they were from the plaintiff’s diary and showing the plaintiff with Alan Wan. While the court criticised the placement of such evidential material (noting it belonged in affidavits rather than pleadings), it did not treat these issues as determinative of the discovery question. Instead, the court treated the discovery application as properly grounded in relevance and materiality.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. It upheld the discovery orders made by the Deputy Registrar and affirmed by the District Judge. The practical effect is that the plaintiff was required to comply with the specific discovery categories ordered: (a) all correspondence between the plaintiff and Chen Xuan Han, (b) all correspondence between the plaintiff and Alan Wan, and (c) all diary entries relating to Alan Wan from June 2018 to June 2020.
The court also indicated that it would hear costs at a later date if the parties could not agree. This means that, while the substantive discovery relief was granted to the defendant, the financial consequences were left for further determination.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is a useful authority for practitioners on the threshold for specific discovery in Singapore civil procedure, particularly in defamation disputes where the documentary context may be intimate and sensitive. The decision reinforces that discovery is not defeated by conclusory assertions that relevant entries do not exist. Where the defendant has shown that the requested documents are relevant and material, the resisting party must produce the documents within the scope of the order, rather than merely deny the existence of particular content.
From a litigation strategy perspective, the judgment highlights the importance of framing discovery requests with specificity. The defendant’s request was tied to particular counterparties (Chen Xuan Han and Alan Wan) and a defined time period for diary entries. This specificity supported the court’s conclusion that the request was not a fishing expedition. Conversely, the plaintiff’s approach—arguing that she did not have the “kind of entries” sought—was treated as insufficient because it did not address the core discovery mechanism: production of the relevant records for inspection.
The decision also provides guidance on objections based on scandal and vexation. Even where the subject matter is inherently sensitive, the court will not automatically treat discovery as improper. Instead, the court will assess whether the application is procedurally legitimate and relevant to issues at trial. For counsel, this means that sensitivity alone is unlikely to defeat discovery; the better approach is to engage with relevance, materiality, and proportionality, and to ensure that discovery orders remain within the bounds of what is necessary for trial.
Legislation Referenced
- (Not specified in the provided extract)
Cases Cited
- Soh Lup Chee v Seow Boon Cheong and another [2002] 1 SLR(R) 604
Source Documents
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.