The Supreme Court orders influencer Rachel Wong to show over correspondence with two males to a lady who has accused her of infidelity

SINGAPORE – A High Court judge on Tuesday (June 28) upheld a lower court’s decision allowing a woman who has accused social media influencer Rachel Wong of infidelity to receive correspondence between them Ms. Wong and two men.

Ms Olivia Wu had branded Ms Wong the “Cheater of the Year 2020” on Instagram, claiming Ms Wong cheated on her ex-husband – national footballer Anders Aplin. with her fitness trainer and her wedding presenter.

Ms. Wong and Mr. Aplin annulled their marriage four months after the allegations were made, and Ms. Wong then sued the other woman for defamation.

She is claiming damages of S$150,000 including aggravated damages.

Earlier this year, a county court judge ordered the 27-year-old influencer to turn over her diary entries and correspondence with the other two men.

Ms Wong appealed this decision to the High Court. Discovery is the formal process in which the parties exchange relevant documents in preparation for the proceeding.

In a five-page written ruling, Supreme Court Justice Choo Han Teck dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court that Ms. Wu had sufficiently demonstrated that the documents she requested were relevant and essential to the trial.


Ms. Wong’s defamation lawsuit was prompted by six Instagram stories titled “Cheater of 2020” that Ms. Wu — a part-time nurse working for a pharmaceutical company — posted to her account in December 2020.

In her Instagram stories, Ms. Wu, who is acquainted with Mr. Aplin’s current girlfriend, accused Ms. Wong of being intimate with her fitness trainer and wedding host Mr. Alan Wan.

Ms. Wu further claimed that Ms. Wong had sex with Mr. Wan on their wedding night.

As for the fitness trainer, Ms Wu claimed he had “intimate and sexual conversations” with Ms Wong via text messages on Telegram when she was dating Mr Aplin.

Ms Wong then sued Ms Wu, claiming that the posts caused her to tarnish her reputation as a full-time social media influencer who relies on her image to secure business deals via partnerships.

Justice Choo noted that she has around 41,400 followers on her Instagram account.

“That, I suppose, qualifies her to be a celebrity in her opinion,” the judge added.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Wong claimed that unless she really intended to marry Mr. Aplin, she would not have had a high-profile pre-wedding photoshoot. She said she “fully intended” to marry him before the wedding.

She also claimed that she, Mr Wan and another friend helped Mr Aplin to her hotel room on the night of their wedding when he passed out from alcohol poisoning. She added that she was never alone in the hotel room with Mr. Wan at the time.

She argued that through the Instagram Stories, Ms Wu insinuated that she had “ruined more than one person’s life,” that she was promiscuous, had a mental illness, had no morals, and “would fail a MediaCorp character test.” .

Ms. Wu countered that the posts are not defamatory because they are “essentially true.” She has pleaded defense of fair comment.


In his ruling, Judge Choo said it was important to understand the narrative, although he was only ruling on the ordering of a particular discovery.

The judge wrote: “That’s the first challenge – the narrative isn’t clear. Through a combination of Instagram language and the attorney’s utter failure to translate this into English, (Ms. Wong’s) complaint is full of chaff.”

He then noted the details of Ms. Wong’s claims and that she had left for a solo trip to India a few days after the wedding. She applied for the wedding to be annulled upon her return to Singapore.

In support of his request for disclosure, Ms Wu’s attorney, Gerard Quek, had submitted photocopies of text messages “with lurid details” from a man allegedly named Chen Xuan Han, the judge further noted.

The messages did not reveal who received those messages.

Mr. Quek also attached a copy of an entry from Ms. Wong’s diary in which she expressed her love for Mr. Wan, along with a photograph of what was said to be Ms. Wong lying on his chest.

A district court official and judge then allowed Ms. Wu to obtain the correspondence between Ms. Wong and the two men from 2016 to 2020 and her diary entries from 2018 to 2020 about Mr. Wan.

Judge Chan said Ms Wu “proved adequately” that those documents were relevant and essential to the defamation trial.

“From the evidence presented by the defendant there is reason to believe that similar other entries can be found and if the diaries are presented but no such entries are found then surely that should be the plaintiff’s case in court strengthen,” he added.

The judge referred to Ms Wong’s attorney Clarence Lun’s argument that the other woman was on a “fishing expedition”.

“In this case, samples of relevant material were produced and to extend the fishing analogy a bit, it is not a mere fishing expedition if fish were actually sighted,” added Judge Chan.

The judge then said he would consider the issue of costs if both parties cannot settle them between themselves.

Trial dates for the case have not yet been set.

Comments are closed.