- Woman wins civil suit against former Mindef colleague for battery (unwanted touching).
- Court awards her S$53,697.39 in damages and special damages.
- Incident in 2016 followed by realisation after Me Too movement, leading to legal action.
A woman won a battery civil suit against her former Mindef colleague after police decided not to pursue her sexual assault case.
Battery Civil Suit Outcome
According to The Straits Times, a woman won a civil suit for battery against her former Mindef colleague.
The incident happened in 2016, about nine years before the current judgement.
She filed a police report on this incident in 2021.
The woman said the man sexually assaulted her, but police decided not to take further action.
The police and public prosecutor found insufficient evidence to charge him.
She started the legal battery civil lawsuit after that decision.
- The civil suit ended on 23 May 2025.
- The defendant and victim were not named to protect privacy.
- The case involved events between former Mindef staff.
Battery Civil Suit Damages Awarded
The judgement, dated 23 May 2025, awarded the woman S$53,697.39 in total damages and special damages.
This includes S$45,000 in general damages and an extra S$8,697.39 for medical costs and other related spending.
The general damages covered S$25,000 for pain and suffering and S$20,000 for punitive damages.
Interest applies to both sums.
District Judge Sia Aik Kor denied a claim for loss of earnings, as the loss of job after Mindef was not proven to be caused by the battery claim.
Background of the Relationship
The woman and the man worked together at Mindef before 2016.
They started dating in June 2015 and had an intimate relationship.
The man wanted to be open; the woman asked to keep it secret so colleagues would not gossip.
They broke off their romantic relationship in December 2015 but remained friends.
The two still spent time together and had mixed feelings about their past romance.
- Both parties still liked each other.
- Occasional time together continued after the break-up.
Details of the Incident (10 July 2016)
On 10 July 2016, the two went clubbing with other colleagues.
They rode in the same taxi home and became physically close on the way back.
The woman invited the man to her place for sex.
She then left him in her flat and went for a shower.
After sobering up, she did not want to get back together and regretted inviting him.
- She told him to leave, but he pleaded with her to restart the romance.
- They argued and she made clear she did not want to revisit the past.
- The man did not leave when asked.
He undressed and climbed into her bed.
He grabbed her from behind and restrained her.
He then sexually assaulted her by reaching into her shorts, The Straits Times reported.
She managed to push him away and made the man leave.
As quoted in The Straits Times, the woman later told the court, She said she struggled for the longest time to start to even describe what had happened to her as it was extremely embarrassing and shameful to be able to say it out loud.
Events After the Incident
After the incident, the woman texted the man to apologise.
She said this was instinctive, to avoid conflict and keep the friendship.
She said she did not fully realise it was sexual assault at first and thought she had hurt his feelings.
- She kept blaming herself for what happened.
- She kept a friendship and even considered getting back together.
- She told herself the incident did not matter if he loved her.
She only understood the real meaning of the sexual assault when she read stories from survivors after the Me Too movement in 2017.
She later told her friends and a colleague about the past event.
Realisation and Legal Steps
In March 2021, she emailed senior Mindef officers to highlight the sexual assault by a civilian colleague.
Mindef encouraged her to file a police report.
She made the report about the 2016 incident in early 2021.
By April 2021, she had left Mindef.
According to The Straits Times, the woman explained, She said she had come to understand that the prior romantic relationship between her and the defendant did not negate the fact that she did not give her consent.
In February 2022, she learnt that police would not take action against the man.
She then took legal advice and filed the civil suit in July 2022.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 10 Jul 2016 | Incident happened |
| Mid-2017 | Realised sexual assault after reading Me Too stories |
| Mar 2021 | Email to Mindef leadership |
| Apr 2021 | Left Mindef job |
| 28 Feb 2022 | Police confirmed no further action |
| Jul 2022 | Filed civil lawsuit |
| 23 May 2025 | Judgement issued |
Defence and Judge’s Decision
The man said their relationship was complicated and “on-and-off” and claimed he lost interest in her in October 2016.
He also said he did not remember the details of the day of the incident.
The judge found the woman’s account to be trustworthy, consistent, and backed by messages and witness stories.
The judge found the man’s inability to remember the events lacked believability, despite the passage of time.
The delay in reporting was explained well by the woman, according to the judge.
District Judge Sia Aik Kor was quoted by The Straits Times as saying, It would be speculative for the court to infer from such a decision that the claimants allegations are untrue or fabricated, she added.
The judge said police did not provide reasons for their decision and the court could not draw any findings from that choice.
Only the loss of earnings claim was denied as there was no proof the job loss was caused by the battery claim.
The identities of both parties were kept secret by The Straits Times to protect the woman’s identity.
Do you agree the civil courts should play a bigger role in justice for sexual assault survivors when police decide not to take action?
