For most of us, even if we’re not the closest of friends with those working around us, it’s safe to say that we’re still cordial with them.

Not for these two clothing store owners at Far East Plaza, though.

A while back, a 43-year-old Chinese national named Huang Sining brought fellow clothing store owner Juan Lingjiao to court for five charges as part of a private prosecution.

The charges included those related to criminal intimidation and the Prevention of Harassment Act for incidents that took place over a three-day period in October 2019.

Huang and Juan owned clothing stores next to each other at Far East Plaza, and Huang claimed that Juan was “a stranger”.

The rivalry between the two women apparently resulted in over 50 calls to the police as well over a two-year time period before the matter was brought to court.

However, the court recently acquitted Ms Juan of all her charges.

Ms Huang was also ordered to pay Ms Juan all the costs that were spent for Ms Juan’s defence in court.

Here’s why.

Huang Claimed that Juan Threatened and Insulted Her

In court, it was revealed that Ms Huang accused Ms Juan of threatening her on 23 October 2019.

In particular, Ms Juan had apparently threatened Ms Huang by saying that the latter was not allowed to talk to her employees or pass by her store and that she would hit Ms Huang every time she did so.

Apart from that, Ms Huang claimed that Ms Juan insulted her by saying that she would not be able to become pretty even if she spent $1 million on plastic surgery.

Court documents also revealed that Ms Huang accused Ms Juan of spitting in her food, snatching the mobile phone of Ms Huang’s husband and throwing it on the floor, as well as hitting a mobile phone that Ms Huang was using out of her hands.

Huang Was Found to Have Left Out Evidence

After the trial was heard in a Magistrate’s Court from October 2021 to August last year, the judge decided to acquit Ms Juan of all five charges.

This was due to the discovery that Ms Huang had deliberately left out evidence that was “crucial” to the case, such as how Ms Huang was the one who began provoking Ms Juan first before the latter struck back.

Ms Huang had insulted Ms Juan’s nose, face and brain, causing Ms Juan to retaliate.

Additionally, Ms Huang was not affected by Ms Juan’s remarks towards her as she continued to spit similar comments at Ms Juan even after the incident.

Hence, the judge concluded that Ms Huang’s act of submitting misleading evidence was dishonest and said that it was an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Huang Said that She Took Juan to Court as Police Decided Against Prosecution

Apart from that, Ms Huang revealed that she chose to take Ms Juan to court herself as the police had decided against prosecution when they handled her case.

Additionally, she said that Ms Juan’s acquittal was largely due to how she carried out criminal proceedings with the help of the police and that the police had allegedly “refused” to offer her evidence that helped her case.

She also opposed Ms Juan’s lawyers by saying that her prosecution “was not frivolous or vexatious” since she had been allowed by the public prosecutor to carry on with her case.

Judge’s Comments: Huang Was Extremely Bitter Towards Juan

On Friday (24 February), District Judge Lee Li Choon indicated in her judgement that “bitter enmity” was observed in Ms Huang’s case against Ms Juan.

Ms Huang’s applications for criminal motions and a criminal revision against the acquittal to the High Court were also dismissed.

According to Judge Lee, this showed that Ms Huang was “hell-bent on going after” Ms Juan, as she repeatedly attempted to revisit the criminal charges.

Additionally, the way Ms Huang conducted herself throughout the trial proceedings, such as her remarks about Ms Juan, revealed that she “bears deep-seated grievances against Ms Juan and reveals her ulterior motives or intention to harass Ms Juan when she commenced and continued her criminal prosecution against Ms Juan” according to Judge Lee.

She added that Ms Huang launched her series of prosecution proceedings against Ms Juan due to “ulterior motives or a collateral purpose” and found that Ms Juan’s defence in proving that “the serious and grave assertion that the prosecution is frivolous and/or vexatious” was successful.

“This further reinforces my finding that she has brought these prosecution proceedings against Ms Juan out of malice and her personal vendetta against Ms Juan,” Judge Lee concluded.

And that’s not all.

Other issues about Ms Huang were also revealed during the questioning for this case.

Firstly, it was found that several people, including Ms Juan, have filed a complaint against both Ms Huang and her husband with the Ministry of Manpower.

According to the hearing, they filed the complaint due to how Ms Huang and her husband’s actions severely impacted their lives.

Apart from that, Ms Huang is also facing a separate pending charge under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.

She was found selling bicycles at a store in Far East Plaza without a work pass and was unsuccessful in her appeal for the charge to be dropped.