CHUA JUN YANG v KANG MAY TENG, MARIA OLIVIA

Facts

Chua Jun Yang and Kang May Teng Maria Olivia were colleagues at the Ministry of Defence and had a sexually intimate relationship from 2015. In the early hours of 10 July 2016, after a night at a club, she invited him to her apartment for sex. She said that after showering she changed her mind and told him to leave, but he climbed into her bed, restrained her and digitally penetrated her without consent. He said he could not recall the events but denied doing anything without her consent.

That morning he messaged her, among other things, apologising that he "got out of control AGAIN"; she later replied with an apology and messages about her bed and pillowcase. Over the following months she continued to message and meet him, and in January 2017 asked to restart their relationship, which he declined. She first told friends of an assault in January 2018 and made a police report in March 2021. The police decided to take no further action.

She then sued him for battery in District Court Originating Claim No 313 of 2022. The District Judge found the battery proved and awarded $25,000 for pain and suffering, $20,000 in punitive damages and $8,697.39 in special damages. He appealed in District Court Appeal No 16 of 2025.

Issues

1. Whether the District Judge applied the correct evidential approach to an allegation of sexual misconduct in a civil claim
2. Whether the text messages of 10 July 2016 corroborated the alleged sexual assault
3. Whether the alleged sexual assault was proved on a balance of probabilities

Holding

Chua Lee Ming J allowed the appeal with costs to be paid by the respondent. The District Judge's orders were set aside and the respondent's claim was dismissed with costs, with written submissions on costs here and below to follow.

Reasoning

On the evidential approach, the civil standard of a balance of probabilities applied, with cogent evidence required for a serious allegation. The court accepted that the unusually convincing heuristic may apply in civil cases to uncorroborated evidence, but the District Judge had found corroboration and so had no need to consider it; her self-direction was correct.

On corroboration, the court held the District Judge erred. The appellant's apology for getting out of control again referred back to a 1 July 2016 incident, which the messages showed was an argument in the office, a loss of emotional rather than physical control. His same-day apology for throwing a hissy fit supported that reading. The respondent's later letters, complaint, police report and statements to her psychiatrist were self-serving and not independent corroboration.

On the uncorroborated evidence, the court found her account inconsistent: her letters showed she warned him that dirty clothes must not touch her bed as he walked towards it, unlike her affidavit account of being taken by surprise in seconds. Her messages that morning, including that they could have enjoyed each other the night before, were at odds with an assault hours earlier, and her explanation was rejected. Her frequent and warm contact with him over the next six months and her attempt to restart the relationship after hearing he was dating someone else were also unexplained and inconsistent with the allegation. The District Judge had also wrongly treated his lack of recall as not credible, since he had only drawn inferences from messages about other dates.

From the judgment