These are my write-ups of two cases from Singapore, which first appeared on the Asia Pacific Institute of Experts LinkedIn page:

---

An expert report “so lacking in substance” that it had “nil utility”

Background

In an earlier decision in (Foo v Chan [2023] SGHC 221), the Singapore High Court held that defendant was liable for defaming the solicitor plaintiff in two published statements: one, a review on the Google page of the Law Society of Singapore (“LSS”); the second, a written complaint to the LSS.

In this judgement the Court considered the assessment of damages, with general damages of SGD300,000 and aggravated damages of at least SGD50,000 sought by the plaintiff, and a submission from the defendant that the award should be no more than SGD$30,000 in total.

One of the issues relevant to the assessment of damages was the extent of distribution of the defamatory material.

In this case, the Court accepted the general proposition that “there is no presumption that substantial publication occurs simply by virtue of the defamatory statement being published on the Internet,” and that the onus was on the plaintiff to prove the extent of distribution.

The Expert Evidence

The plaintiff sought to introduce an expert report, as an annexe to her closing submissions.

Noting that plaintiff had not given notice of any intention to rely on expert evidence, the Singapore High Court held that it would have been “clearly improper” to introduce evidence in a such manner, leaving the defendant without any opportunity to test the expert’s opinions in cross-examination or, arrange their own expert.

Further, the Court held that the report “fails to comply with almost every conceivable rule of procedure and substance governing expert evidence” such that it would be of no probative value, even if it was admitted into evidence, identifying a list of deficiencies. The report:

• Was not sworn as an affidavit, and did not acknowledge the expert’s overriding duty to the court.
• Did not contain details of his qualifications to allow the Court to assess his specialised knowledge.
• Dealt with “almost none” of the matters listed at O 40 rr 3(2)(b) to 3(2)(g) of the Rules of Court.
• Did not set out the expert’s reasoning – but worse, it was “not clear what issue his report is intended to relate to or what his report is purposed towards establishing.”
• Was “so lacking in substance that it [possessed] nil utility as far as the issues before the court [were] concerned.”

Outcome

Notwithstanding the deficiencies in the expert report, the Plaintiff was able to secure an order for total damages of SGD $41,250 in Foo v Chan [2025] SGHC 54.

---

Speculation by experts is still speculation!

Background

A valuable sculpture weighing almost 23 kgs fell, some two years after being professionally mounted on the wall of the owner’s home.

The owner sued the installation contractor, claiming damages said to arise due to failure to mount the sculpture in a reasonably secure manner, pleading that “[t]he 5cm screw that held the Sculpture in place on the wall was too small to bear the full weight of the Sculpture over time.”

The Singapore High Court rejected the argument that “the fall of the Sculpture…provides irrefutable evidence that the installation was not properly executed,” finding that the fall was “only the starting point and the real question is why the Sculpture fell.”

The Expert Evidence

The owner’s expert provided an opinion that “at least more than one screw or fixation [point was] required to ensure the robustness, stability, and safety of hanging [the] bulky and heavy Sculpture.” The contractor’s expert provided a contrasting opinion that there was no valid evidence of “inadequate screw fixation which failed over time.”

Notably, there was no evidence about the wall on which the sculpture was mounted, or the size of the hole, because the owner had moved house by the time the experts were engaged and they were unable to obtain access.

The contractor’s expert sought to overcome the lack of access by conducting tests of the mounting system on other walls, and each relied on photographs of the wall and the hole left when the mounting failed.

The Court’s assessment of the expert evidence

In  Lorinet v Helu-Trans (S) Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 66 the Singapore High Court found that:

• The lack of access to the wall created “a significant evidential gap.”
• Analysis of photographs by the experts were “speculative,” and the tests conducted by the contractor’s expert provided little assistance to the Court absent evidence that the test walls were comparable to the wall in question.
• The fall of the sculpture – more than two years after it was mounted –  was “not inherently probative of anything, and still less that [the contractor’s] assumed breach of duty was the operative cause of the incident.”
• It was “impossible” to form any conclusions on the adequacy of the mounting system because the evidence was “simply incomplete” – and even if the sculpture had been improperly installed, the owner could not prove that the contractor’s breach was the cause of the loss.

Outcome 

The owner was unsuccessful.