High Court Declines Rachel Wong’s Appeal in Defamation Case over Personal Correspondence

In the latest development in the saga between social media influencer Rachel Wong and the woman she has sued for defamation, a High Court judge turned down Ms. Rachel Wong’s appeal against an order to provide the correspondence between her and two men she is said to have had relations with.

Ms. Rachel Wong, 27, used to be married to Mr. Anders Aplin, 30, a professional football player.

They wed in December 2019 but by the following April, applied for an annulment, which was granted in March 2021.

However, in December 2020, a woman named Olivia Wu featured Rachel Wong in a series of Instagram Stories with the caption: “Cheater of 2020.”

The series implied that Ms Wong cheated on her then-husband.

Ms. Wu, a nurse, is allegedly a friend of Mr. Aplin’s current girlfriend.

Ms Rachel Wong then sued Ms Wu for defamation, saying that her stories had negatively affected her reputation, which had an effect on the business deals and partnerships which she depends on for her living.

In the course of the lawsuit, Ms Wu requested a copy of Ms Wong’s correspondence with her fitness trainer, Mr Han, as well as for Mr Wan, who had been the emcee at Ms Wong’s wedding.

Ms Wu has also asked for the entries in the influencer’s diary concerning Mr Wan.

Mr Clarence Lun, Ms Wong’s lawyer, alleged that this was a mere “fishing expedition” that would transgress Ms Wong’s privacy.

In March, however, the State Courts said that the documents Ms Wu asked for were “plainly relevant” to the case.

All the correspondence between Ms Wong and her trainer from June 2016 to June 2020 were included in the discovery order, as well as all correspondence between her and Wan between June 2018 and June 2020.

The entries in her diary between June 2018 and June 2020 concerning the emcee were also included.

After the State Court’s decision, Ms Wong appealed to the High Court.

But this appeal was dismissed by High Court judge Choo Han Teck on Tuesday (June 28) as the documents were determined to be relevant to the lawsuit.

“In this case, samples of relevant material had been produced and, just to extend the fishing analogy just a bit more, it is not a mere fishing expedition if fish has in fact been spotted,” the judge said.

/TISG