IN THE STATE COURT S OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGDC 280 Between Liew Wei Yen Ashley ... Plaintiff And Soh Rui Yong ... Defendant JUDGMENT [ Courts and Jurisdiction ] — [ Judges] — [ Recusal] i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ............................ 1 CASE HISTORY ................................ ................................ ............................. 3 T HE T RIAL & K EY A PPLICATIONS ................................ ................................ .. 3 SUM 27 86/2020 ................................ ................................ ......................... 4 SUM 2828/2020 ................................ ................................ ......................... 5 SUM 2895/2020 ................................ ................................ ......................... 5 SUM 3132/2020 ................................ ................................ ......................... 6 SUM 3175/2020 ................................ ................................ ......................... 6 Current Status ................................ ................................ ............................ 7 FACTUAL BACKDROP SUR ROUNDING THE ALLEGAT IONS ......... 7 THE LAW ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 20 MY DECISION ................................ ................................ .............................. 25 A LLEGATIONS T HAT I HAVE DESCENDED INTO THE ARENA AND THERE IS EXCESSIVE JUDICIA L INTERFERENCE , APPARENT BIAS AND PREJUDGMENT ................................ ................................ ............................... 25 First category of allegations: That I have descended into the arena and shown apparent bias when I explained that 700m was only an estimate ................................ ................................ ....................... 25 Second category of allegations that I have descended into the arena and invited Liew to change his estimate so as to wriggle out o f his allegedly “untenable position”. ................................ ..................... 37 Third category of interventions – allegations of pre - judgment ............... 48 A LLEGATIONS THAT I HAVE UNJUSTIFIABLY REFUSED THE ASSISTAN CE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE ................................ ................................ .................... 51 ii A LLEGATIONS THAT I HAVE DOWNPLAYED AND / OR DISREGARDED THAT S OH WAS CAUGHT BY SUR PRISE ................................ ........................... 54 A LLEGATIONS THAT I HAVE BLAMED HIS COU NSEL FOR L IEW ’ S FRESH REVELATION OF FACT ................................ ................................ .................... 55 A LLEGATIONS THAT I HAVE APPLIED DOUBLE STANDARDS ........................... 56 A LLEGATIONS THAT I HAVE IMPEDED S O H ’ S COUNSEL FROM DRAWI NG AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST L IEW ................................ ....................... 57 A LLEGATIONS THAT I HAVE ALLOWED 53 FRESH DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS TO BE AD MITTED IN THE MIDST OF TRIAL ................................ ....... 59 A LLEGATIONS THAT I HAVE MISAPPLIED THE LAW DURING THE HEARING OF SUM 3132/2020 ................................ ................................ ....... 60 A LLEGATIONS IN RELATI ON TO THE HEARING ON 12 N OVEMBER 2020 ......... 60 O THER ALLEGATIONS ................................ ................................ .................... 61 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ .............................. 62 This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 District Court Suit No 1784 of 201 9 District Court Summons 3822 of 2020 District Judge Lee Li Choon 3 December 2020 [ 14 December 2020 ] Judgment reserved. District Judge Lee Li Choon : Introduction 1 District Court Summons 3822 of 2020 is an application by the Defendant in District Court Suit No. 1784 of 2019, Soh Rui Yong that I be recused from hearing any application or matter arising out of or in connection with the said suit on grounds of apparent bias, prejudgment and excessive judicial interference. The application was filed on 9 November 2020 and I heard the application on 3 December 2020. 2 District Court Suit No. 1784 of 2019 is a defamation suit filed on 17 June 2019 by the Plaintiff, Ashley Li ew (“Liew”) against the Defendant, Soh Rui Yong (“Soh”). The defamation action arose out of a (i) Blog Post made by Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 2 Soh on 5 June 2018 commenting on an incident at the 2015 28 th SEA Games marathon event that led to Liew being awarded the International Comm ittee for Fair Play’s (IFPC) Pierre de Coubertin World Fair Play Award (“Fair Play Award”) and (ii) a Facebook Comment posted by Soh on 13 October 2018 in the IFPC Facebook Post. 3 Liew and Soh are marathon runners who represented Singapore during the even t. The undisputed fact is that at the said marathon event, an incident occurred in which, except for Liew, all the marathon runners, including Soh missed a specific U - T urn . Liew was subsequently awarded the Fair Play Award in 2016 for his act of sportsmans hip of slowing down to allow the other marathon runners to catch up with him at that marathon race. The key words in both the Blog Post and the Facebook Comment that are the subject of this defamation suit are: “... Nobody slowed down to wait - the race was o n ” and “.. he certainly did not stop or slow down to wait for us whatsoever ” respectively. The defamatory meanings complained of by Liew include, among other things, the innuendo that he had lied and conjured up his account of sportsmanship that resulted in the Fair Play Award. 4 In his Defence, Soh denies that there was any defamatory meaning in his Blog Post and Facebook Comment. He also relies on the defence of justification to the extent that the statements in the Blog Post and Facebook Comment bear meanings, they are true in substance and in fact. He further relies on the defence of fair comment insofar as the words constitute a fair comment on a matter of public interest, namely the events of the 2015 SEA Games Marathon and/or the Award given by the International Fair Play Committee. Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 3 Case History 5 In the proceedings before me, Liew is represented by Mr Mark Teng of That.Legal LLC (“Liew’s counsel”) and Soh is represented by Mr Clarence Lun of Foxwood LLC (“Soh’s counsel”). Liew has four witnesses of fact (including Liew himself) and Soh has four witnesses of fact (including Soh himself) as follows: (a) For Liew (i) Ashley Liew Wei Yen (Liew) (ii) Kuniaki Takazaki – who gave his evidence from Japan via videoconference (iii) Quek Chiu Lian (iv) Lin Jiehan Kelvin (b) For Soh (i) Soh Rui Yong (Soh) (ii) Steven Quek Chin Hwee (iii) Madankumar Balakrishnan (iv) Soh Seow Hong – Soh’s father The Trial & Key Applications 6 The trial was first heard over 8 days in September 2020 (1 - 3 Sept; 8 - 11 Sept; 24 Sept) and is part - heard at this point in time. Just before and in the midst of the trial, various applications were filed by both parties and these spawned fo ur appeals to the High Court by Soh, two of which have been dismissed by Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 4 Justice Valerie Thean with two pending hearing. As my decisions in these applications form the substance of allegations of biasness against me, I set out a brief summary of the key ap plications as follows: SUM 2786/2020 7 This is an application filed on 26 August 2020 by Liew for leave to file a supplementary affidavit of evidence in chief to introduce additional documents, the bulk of which are documents that originated from Soh such as Soh’s further posts on social media and online activities. The rest are publicly available documents from Today Online and The Online Citizen and two are letters of demand and cease and desist letters sent by Liew to Soh and Soh’s counsel. These documents were disclosed to Soh by way of the Lists of Documents filed on 29 October 2019 and 13 August 2020. The bulk of the documents were disclosed in the first List of Documents filed on 29 October 2019. Soh did not challenge the authenticity of the documents disclosed in the first List of Documen t filed on 29 October 2019 and these were included in the Agreed Bundle of Documents. 8 I heard the application in the morning of the second day of trial (2 September 2020). As these new documents were intended to be adduced to show evidence of Soh’s conduc t which is relevant to the question of damages, I granted leave for Liew to file a supplementary affidavit of evidence in chief to introduce these additional documents. Soh appealed against my decision to the High Court. His appeal was dismissed by Justic e Valerie Thean on 21 October 2020. In dismissing the appeal, Justice Valerie Thean noted, “The s e were Soh’s own posts and Soh’s counsel has a further day of cross - examination of Liew allocated.” Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 5 SUM 2828/2020 9 This is an application filed on 3 September 20 20 by Soh for leave to file his supplementary affidavit of evidence in chief to admit his GPS records at the marathon race. I heard the application on 8 September 2020 morning and dismissed the application on the basis that Soh has not given any explanatio n why the GPS records could not have been disclosed during discovery and that he has failed to show how his GPS records which shows his pace in the race is relevant to the material question of whether Liew slowed down or not, among other reasons. Soh appea led against my decision to the High Court. His appeal was dismissed by Justice Valerie Thean on 21 October 2020. In dismissing his appeal, Justice Valerie Thean reasoned that first, his GPS records ought to have been disclosed at discovery and disclosure obligations ought to have been taken seriously especially as the GPS evidence is from an electronic device and second, the evidence is not crucial to the case as Liew’s estimate which Soh seeks to debunk was in any event an estimate which I had also pointe d out. SUM 2895/2020 10 This is an application filed on 7 September 2020 by Soh for leave to file new evidence by an expert witness, Mr Cheong Fook Seng who will give his opinion evidence on whether Liew had slowed down based on Soh’s GPS records among othe r things . I heard the application on 16 October 2020 and dismissed the application on the basis that Soh has not shown that the expert evidence could not have been reasonably obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial before the start of the t rial . I also found the evidence to be essentially rebuttal evidence and that Soh has not shown that a matter or development ha d quite unexpectedly a risen during trial which he could not reasonabl y have anticipated, or which ha d taken him by surprise . Soh has, on Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 6 22 October, filed his appeal against my decision in RAS 25/2020 and the matter is presently fixed for hearing in the High Court on 17 March 2021. SUM 3132/2020 11 This is an application filed on 23 September 2020 by Liew for leave to amend his Statement of Claim to add particular s relating to Soh’s conduct to substantiate his claim for aggravated damages and exemplary damages. All the additional particulars are of documents that have already been admitted into evidence through the Agr eed Bundle of Documents and Liew’s supplementary affidavit of evidence in chief that was allowed via SUM 2786/2020. I heard the application on 16 October 2020. It was represented to me by Liew’s counsel that he would not require any further cross - examinati on of Soh, and that there would be no further delay occasioned by the allowing of the amendment. I granted leave to Liew to amend his Statement of Claim and gave directions to Soh for the filing of consequential amendments to his Defence. Soh has, on 19 Oc tober 2020 filed his appeal against my decision in RAS 2 4 /2020 and the matter is presently fixed for hearing in the High Court on 17 March 2021. SUM 3175/2020 12 This is an application by Soh to admit new evidence of two factual witnesses. I heard the applica tion on 16 October and dismissed the application on the basis that the evidence is essentially rebuttal evidence and Soh has not shown that the rebuttal evidence is a necessary response to a matter or development that has quite unexpectedly a risen during t rial and which he could not reasonabl y have anticipated or which has taken him by surprise . Presently, Soh has not filed an appeal against this decision and the appeal period had already expired on 30 October 2020. Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 7 Current Status 13 By the end of 10 September 2020, Liew has closed his case. The remaining two days (11 September 2020 and 24 September 2020) were spent on the Defence. By 24 September 2020, Liew’s counsel has completed the cross - examination of Soh and one of his three remaining factual witnesses. T he part - heard trial is left with Soh’s two factual witness (Soh Seow Hong and Madankumar Balakrishnan) for cross - examination by Liew’s counsel and a re - examination as necessary by Soh’s counsel and the re - calling of Liew for further cross - examination by So h’s counsel on the documents originating from Soh that I have allowed via Liew’s supplementary affidavit of evidence in chief and the amendment to the Statement of Claim. Factual Backdrop Surrounding the Allegations 14 Soh’s allegations centre around what I had said and the decisions I have made in the context of what I would term as “the 700m issue”. As the context is important, I turn now to set out how the 700m issue came about and what transpired at the trial proceedings regarding this 700m issue. 15 I star t with what Liew has said in his affidavit of evidence in chief on the relevant aspects. At paragraphs 32 and 33 of his affidavit of evidence in chief, Liew said: “32. The chase pack took about 1 minute to catch up with me after Mr Takizaki overtook me. To be clear, I did not wait for the other Participants in the chase pack to overtake me before resuming my usual marathon pace. Instead, I increased my pace once some of them drew level and were running alongside me. 33. It was approximately two and half (2. 5) minutes from the time I left the U - Turn Point, deliberately slowed down to wait for the other Participants, and to the time I increased my speed to my usual marathon pace.” Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 8 16 As can be seen, there was no mention of the distance from the U - turn point where the chase pack caught up with him or where Liew resumed his usual marathon pace. The distance from the U - turn point where this happened first came up in Liew’s cross - examination by Soh’s counsel in the afternoon of first day of the trial proceedings. Lun Where was the somewhat order position, where was the somewhat order that you mentioned in the race, where was this somewhat order you say? Liew Uh, the somewhat order in terms of all the runners being in that somewhat order, --- Lun Yes. Liew is that corre ct? Lun Yes. Liew Uh, Your Honour, I don’t recall the exact positions. Again, this was 5 years ago at the heat of the moment, dark and rainy morning. Um, but, uh, it would have, uh, probably been around 700 metres from the U - turn point Again, I can’t be too --- Lun And --- and --- Liew sure 1 17 It was in response to cross - examination questions that Liew said “ the race resumed the somewhat order probably around 700 metres from the U - turn point ”. 18 After this response from Liew, Soh’s counsel went on to pursue this 700m issue by asking Liew questions in various permutations uninterrupted for the next hour or so, exploring questions regarding the order of runners before and after the 700 metres point, Liew’s pace before and after the 700 metres point and so forth. In response to the questions, Liew responded with these words - 1 Transcript, 1 September 2020, 73 / 23 – 74 / 5 Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 9 “ Around the 700 - metre point ” 2 , “ I can’t be exactly sure of the exact point of the - -- of when the, uh, the act of fair play woul d formally end, but I do recall a clearing on the right side of our running path 3 , “ I cannot, uh, give you an exact, uh, time frame, um --- uh, of uh --- of that exact duration. But in my mind, I could - -- I think I believe I mentioned earlier, I --- I --- in my min d, I would estimate about 2 minutes 30 seconds, 2 minutes 45 seconds, maybe there --- maybe --- maybe --- maybe a bit more ”, “ Again, I cannot give exact timings, uh --- uh, specially not wearing a GPS watch back then. I will estimate it being, uh, 2½ minutes to ho ur - -- uh, 2, uh --- 2 and a --- 2 minutes 30 seconds, 2 minutes 45 seconds, around there, maybe more ” 4 19 Towards the end of the first day of the trial proceedings, Soh’s counsel began to ask Liew questions concerning the pace of the other runners, including Soh’ s. Arising from this, Liew’s counsel raised his objections for the first time on Day 1 of the trial proceedings, stating that the pace of Soh and other runners would not be something Liew could answer and that without any reference to what Soh has said in his affidavit of evidence in chief, Soh’s counsel’s assertions regarding the pace of other runners such as Soh himself are essentially assertions from the bar. Liew’s counsel also objected to this line of questioning on the basis that if Soh’s counsel is s eeking to pursue a scientific point, it should come from an expert and if not, then the place for such points to be made is in the closing submissions. 20 In the process of dealing with these objections from Liew’s counsel, I wanted to better understand and f ollow the points that Soh’s counsel was 2 Transcript, 1 September 2020, 83 / 25 3 Transcript, 1 September 2020, 93 / 7 – 9 4 Transcript, 1 September 2020, 93 / 13 – 16 Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 10 seeking to make. Soh’s counsel then explained to me that he was “ taking (Liew’s) story and doing a scientific – a mathematical approach to understand what is the pace that (Liew) run ”. I then pointed out to Soh’s coun sel that “ there is no point in going the scientific way ” as the 700 metres “ was only an estimate ”. However, if he was putting forth a scientific point as in, a scientific point regarding the pace of a marathon runner , it would have to be properly established through an expert and not by way of a bare assertion from the bar. I said that because Soh’s counsel had not pointed to any relevant evidence that has been tendered in court that would show that a simple mathemati cal calculation of 700 metres over 2.5 minutes shows there was no slowing down. 21 Nevertheless, I did suggest that Soh could include this point in his closing submissions and that he is also free to test the 700m issue with the other witnesses. I then dir ected that Soh’s counsel should move on from this 700m point, to which Soh’s counsel responded with, “ Yes, I have already obtained the concession. We will move on, Your Honour .” 22 I reproduce relevant extract s of the transcript below: Teng: So, Your Honour, this is what I’m talking about. The --- the Defendant is saying that the --- making an assertion from the bar that the Defendant was running at a certain pace. I think we should follow what is in the AEIC --- Lun: Your Honour, s --- Teng: and --- and take it that way. Lun: The Defendant --- the Plaintiff has co --- clearly contradicted his own evidence by saying, “At the 700 - metre mark, 2½ minutes, they caught up with me.” That’s how he say the --- that --- that’s what his story . I’m taking in his story and doing a scienti fic --- a mathematical approach to understand what is the pace that he run . And I think, Your Honour, I think we would be able to show you that on the Defend --- on the Plaintiff’s case, he’s running a record Sea Games --- Court: It may not be --- Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 11 Lun: medals ma ny time. Court: accurate to say 700 - metres, because they went past the U - turn. They went past the U - turn, the Plaintiff’s reference point is from the U - turn’s 700 metres. I mean, is he --- it’s his estimate. Lun: Correct, Your Honour, but --- 5 ------- Court : No. I --- Lun: where he --- Court: I still don’t get --- I --- I don’t get your point. Lun: Your Honour, according to witness --- I apologise I ha --- if I had been unclear. I will try to --- I will try to explain. It took him 2 and --- 700 metres from the U - turn poin t which is 2½ minutes for the order to somewhat resume. Court: Yes. Lun: That means to say --- and these guys had run 50 metres past the U - turn point and had to make a U - turn for 50 metres. Let’s take it just for --- for --- for --- for simple calculation, 100 met res and they had to run another 700 metres according to the Plaintiff. And at the 700 metres mark from the U - turn, which is his position and which he has what sa --- sworn in on affidivat --- in e --- evidence over the course of the day, it took them 2½ minutes to catch up with him. That means to say, Your Honour, these pack was running close 800 metres at --- and caught up with him in 2½ minutes. Teng: Your Honour, I think the place for this is submissions, because it depends on the Defendant’s evidence as well. Court: As well, yup. Teng: Because you got the Defendant chasing the Plaintiff, so the answer to this equation I believe would be one left for su --- better left for submissions. Court: Yes. Teng: And it’s not within the Plaintiff’s knowledge --- 5 Transcript, 1 September 2020, 108 / 26 – 109 / 14 Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 12 Court: Yup. Teng: how fast the --- Court: Yah. Teng: Defendant was running. Lun: Well, --- Court: Alright. Lun: Your Honour, I’m taking the Plaintiff’s words. He says it’s 700 metres which is 2½ minutes, “ These guys caught up with me and that was my act of fair pl ay.” I’m trying to establish in this 700 - metres how he slowed down and I’m trying to take this Honourable Court through and --- on a kilometre by kilometre basis on that projection. It works out to 3 minutes 34 seconds which is far faster than his proclaimed 4 minutes per kilometre pace that he took to complete the entire marathon in his words . So, Your Honour --- Teng: If I may, Your Honour, I think this kind of calculations are better left for expert evidence --- Court: And --- Teng: not from the bar Court: Y up. And also, it --- Teng: And I know there’s no expert --- Court: Yah. Teng: called to the --- to --- Court: If the sum --- Teng: to support the Defence’s case. Court: still work out, then either his estimate of 2.5 minutes is not correct, it could --- it could m ean that, or it could also mean that, you know, what --- what --- what the Defendant says. But at the end of the day, we cannot take what he’s saying now to be a scientific evidence, alright? Lun: Your Honour, --- Court: So, there is no point in going the scie ntific way, because it’s only an estimate, he wasn’t wearing a GPS watch, there was no way of confirming whether it was at the 700 - metre mark or it was to --- it took 2.5 minutes for the rest of the pack to catch up with him Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 13 Lun: Your --- Your Honour, it woul d have been troubling to this Honourable Court that season professional --- Court: Well, you can make --- Lun: In marathon --- Court: your submissions, alright, in --- you can include this point in your closing submissions , but I --- I don’t suggest that we pursu e it, you know. It’s --- it’s --- if you have a --- a point to push that is scientific, it should have been through an expert witness rather than from the --- Lun: Well, --- Court: Plaintiff Lun: Your Honour, no expert witness --- Court: We do not --- Lun: are re --- Court: know for a fact that it was 2.5 minutes and 700 metres. It was only an estimate in response to your questions, alright? 6 ....... Court: Let’s continue. Let’s --- Lun: I take Your Honour’s point. Court: move on from this point Lun: But the --- Your Honour, if I could --- if you co --- Court: You can include in your submissions , alright. But I --- I - -- I don’t see any point in pursuing this line of questioning Lun: Well, Your Honour, I --- I --- my --- my instruct --- submissions that this would have be en important to this Court, because --- Court: Yah, you include it --- Lun: they --- Court: in your closing submissions , --- Lun: Well, Your Honour, --- 6 Transcript, 1 September 2020, 110 / 4 – 112 / 18 Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 14 Court: okay? Lun: I’m --- I’m only seeking to develop the point for that, because --- Court: You can --- Lun: because, Your Honour --- Court: you can pursue that with the other witnesses, as well. You’ve already obtained his response to your questions, he said 2.5 minutes it’s --- Lun: 7 --- Court: about 700 metres from the U - turn point. Lun: Yes, I have already obta ined the concession. We will move on, Your Honour 7 23 In light of this discussion in open court in the context of objections from Liew’s counsel and my direction to Soh’s counsel to “ move on from this point ” and to include relevant points concerning the 700 m issue in his closing submissions, one would have thought the matter of the 700m issue had been put to rest then. 24 However, when the trial resumed the next morning, Soh’s counsel continued with his cross - examination of Liew on the 700m issue. He explored various permutations of questions on this 700m issue and other related matters in his cross - examination of Liew. Although the questions were repetitive, Liew’s counsel did not raise any objections on questions related to the 700m issue initially and Soh’s counsel was accorded great latitude in exploring the 700m issue in his cross - examination. 25 As he had done so on the first day of trial, Soh’s counsel made submissions on evidence to me at various points. Even though cross - 7 Transcript, 1 September 2020, 113 / 28 – 114 / 19 Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 15 examination is not the proper place for submissions on evidence to be made, I gave him ample leeway without cutting him short. 26 After more than an hour of continued cross - examination on the 700m issue, Soh’s counsel represented to me that he intends to submit in closing submissions that “ ru nning 700 metres in 2.5 minutes cannot be a slowdown .” As the contention that the fact that Liew ran 700 metres in 2.5 minutes shows there was no “slowdown” (which is a material relevant fact) is opinion evidence that only an expert can render, I then repe ated my explanation to him that if it is a matter of opinion evidence, it has to be properly adduced and established. It cannot be established by an assertion from the bar. I made those statements as points of guidance because I had realised that Soh’s cou nsel might have misunderstood me when I said that he could include relevant points in his closing submissions the day before. 27 I reproduce relevant parts of the transcript below: Lun: We were taking in submissions, Your Honour, how running 700 metres in 2½ minute cannot be a slowdown. I will leave to submissions. But Your Honour we are taking on the credibility. Court: Well, it would be a matter of evidence and not submissions, alright Lun: Certainly. Court: And evidence from the bar is --- Lun: Of course. Court: no, no, right? You are also no expert to tell me whether running 700 metres in 2½ minutes is the normal speed of a marathon runner or not. And I would also imagine that in a marathon race, the runner would be running at different spe eds at different parts of the race. So, --- Lun: Of course, Your Honour. Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 16 Court: no doubt in the absence of expert evidence, I --- I --- I don’t see how that piece of evidence would go to establish anything Teng: Your Honour, is reading my mind. And the only t hing I’ll say is this line of questioning is going round and round in circles on this 700 metres 2½ minutes issues which is --- is --- is not something that the Plaintiff can --- can prove also because he is --- he is not expert witness called to this --- Court: Ya h. Teng: in this case. So, it’s an expert witness issue to which the Defendant did not call an expert witness, that’s by choice 8 28 Based on these discussions that had transpired in court, Soh would have formed the impression that he would have to consider filing an application to seek leave to introduce expert opinion evidence if he still wished to establish the contention that, “ running 700 metres in 2.5 minutes cannot be a slowdown ” As a matter of procedure, Soh would not be prevented from filing such an application. However, the adversarial process dictates that if the application was contested, such an application would have to be heard and decided based on applicable legal principles as regards rules of evidence and civil procedure. In this case, legal principles as regards the introduction of new or rebuttal evidence at this stage of the trial proceedings would be applicable. 29 Before I stood down for a lunch break on Day 2 of the trial proceedings, I again explained to Soh’s counsel why based on what had been heard thus far, this was a contention that had to be properly established by evidence. Court: But with regard to the evidence --- Lun: Your Honour, I’ve taken on the point. Court: on the 700 metres and 2.5 minutes which you had gone on ad nauseam, I’m telling you that this is a matter of evidence. 8 Transc ript, 2 September 2020, 47 / 20 – 48 / 12 Liew Wei Yen Ashley v Soh Rui Yong [2020] SGDC 280 17 If you intend for this to establish any fact, it will have to be properly adduced through an expert. Okay? Lun: Yes, Your Honour. I take Your Honour’s --- Court: So, the fact of the 700 metres in 2½ minute s doesn’t tell me any other relevant fact. Lun: Certainly, Your Honour 9 30 The above sets out the background for my interventions which Soh has complained of in alleging that I had shown apparent biasness against him and had excessively interfered in the proceedings. 31 In spite of my directions and explanation before the lunch br eak, Soh’s counsel again harped on Liew’s estimate of 700m when the hearing resumed after the lunch break. It was clear that Liew had insisted that 700 metres was just an estimate he could not be sure of. Soh’s counsel’s persistent pursuit on this point ma de it evident to me that this was an important issue to Soh. As Liew had mentioned earlier in the day that there was a bridge at the point where Mr Takazaki caught up with him 10 and he has also said he recalled there was a clearing to his right when the ch ase pack caught up with him on the first day of trial 11 , after ascertaining from him that he would be able to point out on Google Maps where the bridge was 12 , I suggested to Soh’s counsel to make use of Google Maps using landmarks that Liew could point out f or his further cross - examination on this point 13 I did this in a bid to obtain greater clarity on the 9 Transcript, 2 September 2020, 49 / 31 – 50 / 8 10 Transcript, 2 September 2020, 3 / 27 – 4 / 5 11 Transcript, 1 September 2020, 92 / 30 – 93 / 9 12 Transcript, 2 September 2020, 94 / 3 – 95 / 12 13 Transcript , 2 September 2020, 96 / 6 - 14