MR PIPER’S COMPLAINT AND LAWSUIT
Ms Loi is the co-founder of SGFamilies Ground-up Movement, an affiliate of SKM.
On Aug 27, 2022, Mr Piper sent an email to SKM alleging that Ms Loi was promoting false and discriminatory material against transgender people through a Telegram group called “SG Families Watchgroup”.
He said that he hoped SKM would reach out to Ms Loi, gain control of the Telegram group and remove the “nasty content” in it.
Mr Piper’s email contained his full name and email address. This personal data was disclosed to Ms Loi when an SKM staff member copied her in a subsequent reply to Mr Piper.
In September 2022, Ms Loi sued Mr Piper for harassment. She also made Facebook posts documenting her process of filing the claim, after which Mr Piper received threatening messages.
Ms Loi withdrew the harassment suit in May 2023.
Last August, Mr Piper sued SKM for damages for emotional distress, and a declaration that the charity had breached its obligations under the PDPA.
During the trial, it emerged that even before Ms Loi was copied in the email reply, SKM had revealed Mr Piper’s identity to her in a phone call, at a meeting and by blind copying her in an earlier email response.
A district judge dismissed Mr Piper’s suit after finding that he was “deemed to have consented” to the disclosure because he volunteered his personal data, wanted SKM to investigate his complaint and did not request to be anonymous.
Mr Piper appealed against this decision, and the appeal was heard at the High Court.
“DEEMED CONSENT”
Justice Hoo analysed whether Mr Piper had given his “deemed consent” for his details to be disclosed to Ms Loi.
To establish deemed consent, the nature of the personal data being disclosed must be weighed against the purpose of providing such data in the first place, she said.
“For instance, it would be reasonable for an individual to voluntarily provide his name and contact details within a form for the purpose of participating in a free-to-enter competition, where no prize money is involved,” said the judge.
But if the form asks for bank account details, it would not be reasonable to say that the individual volunteered this information for the same purpose, she said.
This is because such sensitive personal data would not be required to join a free-to-enter competition with no prize money.
In Mr Piper’s case, it was reasonable that he voluntarily provided his name and email address to SKM for the purpose of investigating his complaint, said the judge.
This was because SKM’s personal data protection policy stated that it was generally unable to deal with anonymous complaints, and so SKM could continue to correspond with him on the complaint over email.
“It then follows that SKM could only have collected, used or disclosed Mr Piper’s full name and email address for the sole purpose of investigating his complaint against Ms Loi,” said Justice Hoo.
UNNECESSARY TO REVEAL HIS DETAILS
The judge found that it was unnecessary for SKM to have disclosed Mr Piper’s personal data to Ms Loi in the course of investigations.
“There was simply no need for SKM to have authenticated Mr Piper’s identity with Ms Loi before carrying out its investigations, because no part of the investigations would have turned on the identity or email address of the complainant,” she said.
“Put another way, it was immaterial whether Ms Loi knew Mr Piper’s personal data.”
Justice Hoo further noted that Mr Piper’s complaint was not about Ms Loi’s conduct towards him specifically.
“SKM could simply have approached Ms Loi, stated the allegations that it was investigating her for, and sought the necessary clarifications from Ms Loi,” she said.
“Upon receiving Ms Loi’s clarifications, SKM could have come to its findings, before taking the appropriate remedial action, if any.”
If Ms Loi had refused to cooperate, SKM could have considered other means to escalate the matter for investigations, she said.
And if SKM thought that Mr Piper’s complaints had no merit, it could have told him so, although even then there would have been no reason to disclose his personal details to Ms Loi, the judge found.
CONCERNS ABOUT RETALIATION
Justice Hoo also said that in the context of a complaint, the person being complained about could reasonably feel aggrieved, bear a grudge and even retaliate against the complainant.
It was reasonable for a complainant to be concerned about such repercussions, even if he or she was expected to stand by the complaint, she said.
It was therefore reasonable for an organisation to disclose the complainant’s personal data only if needed for investigating the matter.
“The nature of the allegations would be important. One instance where such disclosure may be required or necessary is if the complainant alleges wrongdoing specifically committed against himself or herself,” said the judge.
Mr Fong Wei Li, Ms Tiffanie Lim and Ms Choy Su Wen of law firm Forward Legal acted for Mr Piper.
SKM was represented by Senior Counsel Gregory Vijayendran and Ms Meher Malhotra of Rajah & Tann.
