CHUA JUN YANG v KANG MAY TENG, MARIA OLIVIA

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 63 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGHC 63 High Court (General Division) 25 March 2026 HC/DCA 16/2025 48 min read

11 cases cited

Outcome

Appeal allowed

I allow the appeal with costs to be paid by the respondent.

Source: [2026] SGHC 63, High Court (General Division), decided 25 March 2026. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	25 March 2026
Judge	Chua Lee Ming
Charges / claim	Tort
Outcome	Appeal allowed
Counsel	Fortress Law Corporation, Sreenivasan Chambers LLC, Kyle G Peters, Lee Wan Lin Amelia, Mark Chow, Narayanan Sreenivasan, Tan Si Xin Adorabelle, Yeo Kee Teng Mark

Source: [2026] SGHC 63, High Court (General Division), decided 25 March 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Tort — Assault and battery — Digital penetration

Practice Areas

Tort

Judges (1)

Chua Lee Ming Delivered

Counsel (8)

Fortress Law Corporation Firm Sreenivasan Chambers LLC Firm Kyle G Peters Counsel Appellant Lee Wan Lin Amelia Counsel Respondent Mark Chow Counsel Respondent Narayanan Sreenivasan Counsel Appellant Tan Si Xin Adorabelle Counsel Appellant Yeo Kee Teng Mark Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Chua Jun Yang Appellant Kang May Teng Maria Olivia Respondent

Case Significance

In Chua Jun Yang v Kang May Teng Maria Olivia [2026] SGHC 63, the High Court General Division decided on 25 March 2026 a District Court appeal concerning civil liability for sexual battery. Kang May Teng Maria Olivia had made a police report in 2021 alleging sexual assault by her former colleague Chua Jun Yang, relating to incidents alleged to have occurred more than four and a half years earlier. When the police decided not to take further action, Kang commenced DC/OC 313/2022 claiming damages for battery in the form of digital penetration. The District Judge found in Kang's favour, awarding $25,000 for pain and suffering, $20,000 in punitive damages, and $8,697.39 as special damages. Chua appealed to the High Court. Chua Lee Ming J heard the matter on 19 November 2025 and reserved judgment. Narayanan Sreenivasan and Kyle G Peters of Sreenivasan Chambers LLC appeared for the appellant, and Mark Chow and Lee Wan Lin Amelia of Fortress Law Corporation for the respondent.

[2026] SGHC 63 explained

CHUA JUN YANG v KANG MAY TENG, MARIA OLIVIA ([2026] SGHC 63) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 25 March 2026. It is categorised under Tort. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2026] SGHC 63 about?

CHUA JUN YANG v KANG MAY TENG, MARIA OLIVIA ([2026] SGHC 63) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Tort — Assault and battery — Digital penetration”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 63 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 63 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 38. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

Chua Jun Yang appealed against a District Court judgment finding him liable in battery for sexually assaulting his former colleague, Kang May Teng, Maria Olivia, by way of digital penetration in July 2016, with the lower court having awarded $25,000 for pain and suffering, $20,000 in punitive damages, and $8,697.39 in special damages. The key issue was whether the respondent had proved the alleged assault on a balance of probabilities given the disputed evidence and a prior intimate relationship between the parties. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the respondent's evidence insufficient to establish the assault on a balance of probabilities, and dismissed the claim.

What damages did the District Court award in Kang May Teng Maria Olivia v Chua Jun Yang before the High Court appeal in 2026 ([2026] SGHC 63)?

The District Court awarded Kang May Teng Maria Olivia $25,000 for pain and suffering, $20,000 in punitive damages, and $8,697.39 in special damages against Chua Jun Yang for battery in the form of digital penetration, a total of $53,697.39.

Why did Kang May Teng pursue civil rather than criminal proceedings in Chua Jun Yang v Kang May Teng Maria Olivia [2026] SGHC 63?

After Kang May Teng made a police report in 2021 alleging sexual assault by former colleague Chua Jun Yang relating to incidents occurring over four and a half years earlier, the police decided not to take further action, prompting her to commence civil proceedings in DC/OC 313/2022 for battery.