SITI AZRIAH BINTE ZAINEE v ABDUL RAHIM BIN MOHAMED WAMBRI@RAYE WAMBRI
Outcome
Claim dismissed“The action is therefore dismissed.”
Source: [2026] SGDC 311, District Court, decided 21 September 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | District Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Evans Ng |
| Charges / claim | Tort |
| Outcome | Claim dismissed |
| Counsel | A C Syed & Partners, Fervent Chambers LLC, Chishty Syed Ahmed Jamal, Clarence Lun Yaodong |
Source: [2026] SGDC 311, District Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Siti Azriah Binte Zainee v Abdul Rahim Bin Mohamed Wambri@Raye Wambri [2026] SGDC 311 was decided by District Judge Evans Ng in the District Court on 21 September 2026. The Claimant, an advocate and solicitor from July 2013 until March 2022, had witnessed a will prepared in August 2021 for the Defendant's mother. After her death in January 2024, the Defendant made a police report and a complaint to the Law Society of Singapore in September 2024 against the lawyer and the Claimant. The issues were defamatory meaning and qualified privilege. The court found the Complaint defamatory but made on an occasion of qualified privilege, held express malice was not proved, and dismissed the action, with costs to be heard.
[2026] SGDC 311 explained
SITI AZRIAH BINTE ZAINEE v ABDUL RAHIM BIN MOHAMED WAMBRI@RAYE WAMBRI ([2026] SGDC 311) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 21 September 2026. It is categorised under Tort. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGDC 311 about?
SITI AZRIAH BINTE ZAINEE v ABDUL RAHIM BIN MOHAMED WAMBRI@RAYE WAMBRI ([2026] SGDC 311) is a District Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Tort — Defamation — Qualified privilege” and “Tort — Defamation — Defamatory statements”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGDC 311 consider?
The judgment refers to Legal Profession Act (Cap 161). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGDC 311 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHC 221. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The District Court heard a defamation claim by a former advocate and solicitor against the son of a client whose will she had witnessed. The Defendant had made a police report and a complaint to the Law Society of Singapore alleging that she falsely represented herself as a qualified lawyer. The court found the police report was not properly pleaded or proved, and that the Law Society complaint was defamatory but published on an occasion of qualified privilege, with express malice not proved. The action was dismissed.
What was Siti Azriah Binte Zainee v Abdul Rahim Bin Mohamed Wambri about ([2026] SGDC 311)?
The Claimant, a former advocate and solicitor, sued the Defendant in defamation over a police report and a complaint to the Law Society of Singapore alleging she falsely held herself out as a qualified lawyer when witnessing his mother's will.
Why was the defamation claim dismissed in [2026] SGDC 311?
The court held the Law Society complaint was published on an occasion of qualified privilege and that express malice was not proved on a balance of probabilities. The police report was neither pleaded with the words complained of nor proved.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (7)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGDC 311)