Man sued by former colleague for alleged sexual assault in 2016 wins appeal

SINGAPORE – A man ordered by a district judge in 2025 to pay more than $53,000 in damages to a former colleague who sued him for sexually assaulting her in 2016 has won his appeal against the decision.

In a written judgment on March 25, a High Court judge overturned the lower court’s decision and found that the woman “has not proved the alleged sexual assault on a balance of probabilities”.

Justice Chua Lee Ming disagreed with the district judge’s finding that the woman’s account of the alleged assault was corroborated by text messages exchanged between her and the man following the incident on July 10, 2016.

He said the text messages were inconsistent with the alleged sexual assault, and rejected her explanations for the messages.

He highlighted one message in which the woman said: “I think we could have enjoyed each other last night and had fun and I wanted to.”

The judge noted that, following the alleged assault, the woman actively sought him out to chat with him on WhatsApp, for his company and various activities, including spending the night at her place.

Justice Chua rejected her explanation that she continued to be friendly with the man because she had not understood the full gravity of his actions, blamed herself, and that it was impossible to cut ties with him because they worked in the same office and had mutual friends.

The woman had pursued the civil case after the police decided not to take further action against the man.

The police told The Straits Times in June 2025 that they commenced investigations after she reported the sexual assault in 2021, but did not take further action against the man as the evidential threshold for criminal prosecution was not met.

The man and the woman were colleagues at the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) in 2015 when they began a sexual relationship.

She claimed that she ended the relationship in December 2015, while he claimed that they continued to be physically intimate with each other.

On the night of July 9, 2016, she messaged him to join her and other colleagues at a nightclub.

He arrived at about 2am. Both of them ended up at the woman’s home after leaving the club.

According to her, she invited him over for sex, but while she was in the shower, she sobered up and regretted having asked him over.

She said that after she told him he should go home, he pleaded with her to get back into a relationship with him.

After a heated conversation, she lay down on her bed with her back facing him, she said.

She added that he removed his clothes, climbed into her bed, and forcefully wrapped his arms around her from behind.

As she struggled, he reached into her shorts and violated her, she said.

She added that she pushed his hand away and demanded that he leave immediately.

The man said he could not recall the exact events that transpired at her home.

Shortly after he left her home, he sent her several text messages.

She responded the next day, and they continued to exchange messages and meet in person.

In October 2016, the man entered into a romantic relationship with another colleague, whom he later married.

From January 2018, the woman began telling friends that she was sexually assaulted by the man.

She said this was because she was exposed to the rise of the “Me Too” global social movement against sexual violence.

In March 2021, she submitted a complaint to the senior management of MINDEF, alleging various instances of sexual harassment and assault.

MINDEF encouraged her to file a police report, and she did so. She resigned from the ministry at the end of that month.

After the police decided not to take any further action against the man, she filed a civil suit against him, claiming damages for battery.

She was awarded $45,000 in general damages and $8,697.39 in special damages.

The man, represented by Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan, appealed to the High Court.

In his judgment, Justice Chua said the district judge erred in concluding that the text messages on July 10, 2016 corroborated the woman’s allegation.

He added that the district judge appeared to have come to this conclusion because of a message in which the man said: “I apologise that I got out of control again.”

The district judge relied on an incident on July 1, 2016, during which the pair had an argument in the office after the man touched the woman on the shoulder.

The man’s explanation that he was referring to losing control of his emotions and allowing himself to get into an argument with the woman was rejected by the district judge.

But Justice Chua said it was clear from the text messages exchanged between the pair over the July 1 incident that the loss of control was emotional, not physical.

He added that the man’s contention was supported by another message on July 10, 2016, in which he apologised “for being childish and throwing a hissy fit”.

Read Full Article At Source