Ashley Liew prevails in marathon defamation case against Soh Rui Yong to the tune of $180,000
The Plaintiff, Ashley Liew (left) in this case was represented by lead counsel and Executive Director, Mark Teng (profile), Lim Tianjun (Senior Associate), and Ng Weng Sun (Associate).
At long last, the saga is over, and the race is won (pun intended).
It has been a gruelling 2-and-a-half-year legal battle, but the final victor has been decided – our client, Dr. Ashley Liew, has triumphed. This article is a summary of the legal proceedings related to DC/DC 1784/2019, the defamation dispute between two Singaporean marathon runners, Ashley Liew (“Liew”), the Plaintiff, and Soh Rui Yong (“Soh”), the Defendant.
The Central Dispute of Fact
At the centre of this defamation suit is Liew’s act of sportsmanship during the 2015 SEA Games Men’s Marathon (the “Marathon”). Both Liew and Soh were teammates at that point, and they were the only two male national athletes representing Singapore in the Marathon.
The Marathon consisted of several loops around the East Coast Park, and this meant that at various junctures during the race, the participants would be required to make a u-turn. It is at one of these u-turn points where what is known now as Liew’s Act of Fair Play occurred (the “U-Turn Point”).
Basically, all the male participants of the Marathon, save Liew, missed the U-Turn Point and overshot it, instead of taking the u-turn correctly. Liew, after becoming aware of this mistake on the part of his competitors, made the conscious decision to deliberately slow down to wait for them to catch up to him before continuing the race properly. This incident was reported on by various mainstream and social media news agencies and became known as Liew’s Act of Fair Play. Liew was publicly commended by various governmental officials, including Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, for his Act of Fair Play and was later awarded the prestigious Pierre De Coubertin World Fair Play Award (which is given to athletes for acts of sportsmanship).
Soh, who claimed that Liew did not slow down, went on a tirade on his personal blog, Facebook accounts and Instagram account. He alleged, inter alia, that Liew was lying about his Act of Fair Play and thereby, cast doubt on Liew’s integrity and character. It is these social media posts, and in particular, the unqualified language used therein, that Liew took issue with and what eventually resulted in the commencement of these legal proceedings. In one instance see [8] of the judgement, Soh said:
“Sorry I’m going to point out something here: this story is untrue”;
“I was third in place in that race when we took a wrong turn. When we turned around perhaps 50m into the wrong turn, Ashley was already running in the other direction. We took quite a while to catch up to him (at least 1-2minutes) (Soh subsequently (on 29 January 2020) amended his comment from “We took quite a while to catch up to him (at least 1-2minutes)” to “We took quite a while to catch up to him (at least 7 minutes”)), he certainly did not stop or slow down to wait for us whatsoever”;
“I didn’t say anything about this 3 years ago because I figured a teammate of mine just had a bad race and needed something to feel better about his performance. But this fictional version of events that transpired that day…”
“While making a good story, it is simply not true, and I think it’s time to stop living in imagination.”
“Ashley has had enough accomplishments to live by and doesn’t need to rely on this story, which takes away his credibility from those who saw what really happened that day”.
(Emphases by the Judge)
The Verdict
In a 69-page judgement handed down on 22 September 2021, District Judge Lee Li Choon held that most of the statements made by Soh were indeed defamatory and that Soh’s defences of justification and fair comment were not made out.
The Court granted the injunctions sought, and awarded the Plaintiff with general damages of $120,000, taking into consideration the parties’ respective standings in society, the context of Soh’s words being a participant in the Marathon, the mode and extent of publication of Soh’s statements including Soh’s own publicity of his statements, and the extent of the third-party media coverage on the dispute.
The Judge further awarded aggravated damages in the amount of $60,000 taking into consideration Soh’s refusal to apologise, repetition of defamatory statements, and his reckless persistence in pleading an unmeritorious justification defence.
Specifically, the Judge noted that it was undisputed that by 1 April 2019, Soh had already been contacted by the Singapore National Olympic Council (“SNOC”) and had received information that SNOC has obtained 4 Statutory Declarations from independent witnesses. Soh was invited by SNOC to satisfy himself as to the “evidence” of Liew’s Act of Fair Play, yet, Soh had wilfully refused to avail himself of this opportunity to verify whether he had a valid case of justification. Soh went on to post more on social media including the statement “I will not back down from the truth”.
Said Dr. Ashley Liew:
My family is so grateful for the vindication received through today’s verdict. It has been a long and arduous road since October 2018. We thank God for His continued mercy and grace on us all. The 2015 SEA Games Marathon is dear to me because we had coincidentally raced on my late mother’s birthday. I hope that she remains proud of the decisions I’ve made as we keep her in loving memory. Moving forward, it is my prayer that we can all heal, for the betterment of sport in Singapore, especially for the values that athletics stand for. Thank you to my father, wife, ONE Management, family, friends, and well-wishers who have stood by us during this difficult period. Our deepest appreciation as well to our legal team at That.Legal LLC for their commitment and professionalism.
The verdict has been reported in the following media channels:
Timeline of the Legal Marathon.
The Proceedings Leading Up to Trial
The first shots were fired on 9 April 2019, when Liew sent Soh a Letter of Demand, demanding that Soh take down various defamatory social media posts from his various platforms and issue an apology. Soh refused to comply with the demands, and this resulted in this case snowballing into a full-blown litigation dispute.
Due to the high-profile nature of this case, mainstream media saw it fit to report on the proceedings as they happened. Below are links to several articles that cover this case.
Soh’s allegations regarding Liew’s Act of Fair Play: https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/athletics-soh-claims-tale-of-teammates-act-of-sportsmanship-at-2015-sea-games-not-true-but
Soh served Letter of Demand by SNOC: https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/marathoner-soh-rui-yong-served-lawyers-letter-for-comments-on-fellow-runner-ashley-liew
Soh served Cease and Desist Letter by Liew: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sport/ashley-liew-soh-rui-yong-lawyer-letter-marathon-slow-down-884666
Liew’s Initiation of Court proceedings against Soh: https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/athletics-ashley-liew-files-court-papers-against-soh-rui-yong-over-2015-sea-games-marathon
Until the commencement of trial, the litigation process continued as with any other case. Documents were filed and exchanged, dates were set, and both parties geared up for what would be an extremely eventful trial.
The Trial – Day 1
Day 1 of trial began with the cross-examination of Liew. Soh’s lawyer questioned Liew extensively about the events of that fateful day and about Liew’s Act of Fair Play. Soh’s goal was to prove that the Act of Fair Play did not occur and that Liew was lying. Unfortunately for Soh, Liew’s testimony was consistent throughout and try as he might, Soh was unable to find any flaws.
It also became apparent that Soh’s defamatory comments were “out of the blue” and “unprovoked”.
The Straits Times report on Day 1 of the trial may be found at: https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/athletics-sohs-allegations-were-unprovoked-says-marathoner-liew-during-defamation-suit?xtor=CS3-18&utm_source=STiPhone&utm_medium=share&utm_term=2020-09-01%2020%3A09%3A00
The Trial – Day 2
Day 2 of trial was even more eventful, and some of what transpired in court eventually became the one of the grounds on which Soh made his allegation of judicial bias (Link to Recusal Article). Soh’s lawyer was cited for going on “ad nauseum” about certain timings and distances and when confronted with this, alleged that “the Plaintiff wants to interrupt the flow to prevent his client’s inconsistency and lies from being exposed”. However, no such inconsistencies were found in Liew’s testimony, and he continued to maintain that it was a “fact” that “[he] slowed down”.
The Straits Times report on Day 2 of the trial may be found at: https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/athletics-lawyers-cross-swords-in-day-2-of-ashley-liew-soh-rui-yong-defamation-suit
The Trial – Day 3
Day 3 of trial involved Soh trying to establish that Liew’s reputation was not harmed and that Liew did not suffer any harm from Soh’s defamatory comments. Liew remained stalwart in his position that Soh’s comments painted him in a “very negative light” and that “[he] felt hurt” and “upset”. Liew clarified that he was not a confrontational person and that the sending of a legal letter and/or the commencement of the lawsuit was a “last resort”.
The Straits Times report on Day 3 of the trial may be found at: https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/athletics-sohs-comments-and-posts-put-me-in-very-negative-light-says-marathoner-liew?utm_source=STSmartphone&utm_medium=share&utm_term=2020-09-04+01%3A50%3A29
The Trial – Day 4
On Day 4, it was finally time for a new witness to take the stand – Mr Kuniaki Takizaki. Mr Takizaki is a Cambodian runner who was also a participant in the Marathon and thus could be said to have personally witnessed the events of that day – Mr Takizaki is a key witness because he is the only witness aside from Soh and Liew, who actually ran the Marathon. Mr Takizaki is not fluent in English and thus needed the help of a translator to get his points across. Yet, in spite of the language barrier, he was able to tell the court that Liew did, in fact, slow down and that if not for this fact, it would have been “totally impossible” for him (Mr Takizaki) to have caught up to Liew in such a short amount of time.
The Straits Times report on Day 4 of the trial may be found at: https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/athletics-impossible-to-catch-liew-if-he-had-not-slowed-down-says-cambodian-runner-on-sea?xtor=CS3-18&utm_source=STiPhone&utm_medium=share&utm_term=2020-09-08%2020%3A09%3A49
The Trial – Day 5
Mr Kelvin Ling, another one of Liew’s witnesses, took the stand on Day 5. Mr Ling testified that Liew had slowed down and was definitely running at a “significantly reduced cadence”. In fact, Mr Ling said that, at one point, Liew was moving so slowly that he (Mr Ling) thought that Liew “might have been injured”.
The Straits Times report on Day 5 of the trial may be found at: https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/athletics-liew-was-almost-stationary-says-witness-on-the-sea-games-marathon-incident?xtor=CS3-18&utm_source=STiPhone&utm_medium=share&utm_term=2020-09-09%2021%3A09%3A05
The Trial – Day 6
Ms Quek Chiu Lian Jennifer was Liew’s final witness to take the stand, and the end of her cross-examination/re-examination would have marked the close of the Plaintiff’s case. Ms Quek testified that she personally witnessed Liew’s Act of Fair Play because the dramatic slowing down occurred “directly in front of her”. She went on to say that Liew’s slowing down really stood out to her because it looked to her as though Liew was practically “jogging”, something that she, as an avid marathon runner herself, found to be out of the norm due to the “reduction in momentum” being a “significant waste of energy”.
The Trial – Day 7
On Day 7, Soh finally took the stand. It came to light that Soh had changed his estimation of how long it took the pack of runners to catch up to Liew after the U-Turn Point – Initially, Soh estimated that it took 1 to 2 mins, but later edited his Facebook comment and changed his estimate to 7 minutes. Liew’s lawyer sought to prove that this edit was done in order to ensure that Soh’s case was more consistent, and while Soh disagreed, the trial judge eventually held that Soh did so in order to “align this aspect of his testimony with his position or postulation that Liew did not slow down”.
In order to establish exemplary damages, Liew also put it to Soh that his defamatory comments were done in order to increase his social media following (which could be said to be a form of monetary gain). Soh denied this.
The Straits Times report on Day 7 of the trial may be found at: https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/athletics-marathoner-soh-rui-yong-denies-defaming-former-team-mate-ashley-liew-to-gain-more
The Trial – Day 8
On Day 8, Mr Steven Quek, one of Soh’s witnesses, was called to the stand. Mr Quek testified that “at the point [he] was looking at [Liew], at no point was he slowing down”. However, Mr Quek later on admitted to the possibility that Liew could have slowed down when he was focusing his attention elsewhere. In fact, Mr Quek agreed that “just because [he] didn’t see [Liew’s] act of fair play does not mean it did not happen”.
The Straits Times report on Day 8 of the trial may be found at: https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/athletics-veteran-coach-steven-quek-tells-court-he-did-not-see-liew-slowing-down-during-2015
Throughout the entirety of trial, numerous interlocutory applications were made by both parties – though predominantly by Soh. They include, inter alia, applications to adduce new witnesses (both factual and expert), applications to adduce new evidence and perhaps most controversially, an application for the recusal of the trial judge. These applications had to be handled before trial resumed. Thus, it was only approximately 9 months after Day 8 of the Trial that the Trial was able to resume (and conclude).
The Trial – Day 9
On Day 9, Soh’s father, Mr Soh Seow Hong, was cross-examined as one of Soh’s witnesses. Mr Soh claimed that he did not witness Liew slowing down, but several admissions by him during cross-examination alluded to the possibility that Mr Soh had simply not registered that Liew was running at a slower pace due to, inter alia, the bad lighting.
On the same day, Mr Madankumar Balakrishnan, Soh’s last witness, was also meant to be cross-examined. However, Mr Balakrishnan revealed right at the beginning of his cross-examination that a crucial part of the evidence he gave in his affidavit (i.e. where he was standing during the race) was inaccurate.
In light of this surprising revelation, one which Mr Balakrishnan had more than a year to correct, Liew’s lawyers requested for the trial to be stood down until the next day. The Trial Judge agreed.
The Trial – Day 10
Day 10 was the final day of trial. Mr Balakrishnan was quizzed extensively about his location during the Marathon and he constantly changed his estimate regarding where he was standing. Notably, Mr Balakrishnan claimed to be standing with 2 other spectators (and he confirmed this several times) but when presented with evidence that the said spectators were, in fact, standing at a different location from where he claimed to be, he said that he might have gotten mixed up with who was standing with him.
The Straits Times report on Day 9 and 10 of the trial may be found at: https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/athletics-defamation-trial-over-2015-sea-games-marathon-race-draws-to-a-close