AG v Lai Swee Lin Linda

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 19 October 2015
• Date: 19 October 2015
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1014 of 2014
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Attorney-General

Plaintiff

and

Lai Swee Lin Linda

Defendant

[2015] SGHC 269

Woo Bih Li J

Originating Summons No 1014 of 2014

High Court

Courts and Jurisdiction—Vexatious litigant—Multiple attempts by defendant to re-litigate issues that were res judicata—Whether defendant ‘habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings’—Whether court should exercise discretion to decline making order under s 74 (1) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) —Section 74 (1) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)

The defendant (‘Mdm Lai’) was appointed as a senior officer at the Land Office of the Ministry of Law (‘the Land Office’) on 28 November 1996. On 17 December 1998, her employment was terminated by the Senior Personnel Board F. Mdm Lai then appealed against her termination to both the Appeals Board and the Public Service Commission (‘PSC’), but both appeals were dismissed.

On 20 January 2000, Mdm Lai filed Originating Summons No 96 of 2000 (‘OS 96/2000’) for leave to bring judicial review proceedings against the PSC. Her application was partially allowed at first instance, but the Court of Appeal (‘CA’) in Civil Appeal No 69 of 2000 (‘CA 69/2000’) eventually held that the matters Mdm Lai complained of were not susceptible to judicial review and denied her leave.

Mdm Lai subsequently commenced Suit No 995 of 2004 (‘S 995/2004’) on 17 December 2004 against the Government for, inter alia, declarations that her termination was illegal, void and inoperative and damages arising therefrom. On 23 February 2005, certain parts of Mdm Lai's statement of claim were struck out by the High Court as they attempted to re-litigate matters already determined in OS 96/2000. Mdm Lai filed Civil Appeal No 87 of 2005 (‘CA 87/2005’) to appeal against the striking-out order. The appeal was dismissed on 7 December 2005.

On 8 February 2007, Mdm Lai filed her amended statement of claim for S 995/2004. The action was eventually dismissed by the High Court on 24 November 2010.

Instead of filing an appeal, Mdm Lai filed Summons No 5332 of 2011 (‘SUM 5332/2011’) on 23 November 2011 for an order that the CA ‘reopen and rehear’ its decisions in CA 69/2000 and CA 87/2005 and the High Court's decision in S 995/2004. The application was dismissed by the High Court on 6 March 2012.

Mdm Lai then appealed against the High Court's decision in Civil Appeal No 31 of 2012 (‘CA 31/2012’). However, Mdm Lai failed to comply with certain directions and her appeal was consequently struck out on 12 December 2012.

On 10 December 2013, Mdm Lai filed Originating Summons No 1246 of 2013 (‘OS 1246/2013’), praying that the CA rule on a number of questions of law in relation to, inter alia, the termination of her employment with the Land Office. OS 1246/2013 was struck out in its entirety by an assistant registrar on 31 October 2014 because, amongst other reasons, it attempted to reopen issues pertaining to judicial review.

On the same day, ie,31 October 2014, the Attorney-General filed the present application under s 74 (1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) (‘SCJA’) to restrain Mdm Lai from commencing and/or continuing legal proceedings in relation to, inter alia,the termination of her employment with the Land Office without the leave of the High Court.

On 14 November 2014, Mdm Lai filed Summons No 5748 of 2014 (‘SUM 5748/2014’) to appeal against the decision to strike out OS 1246/2013 and for discovery of certain documents pertaining to the circumstances of her termination. Both prayers were dismissed on 26 February 2015 and 14 July 2015 respectively.

Held, granting the application:

(1) Section 74 (1) of the SCJA aimed at preventing an abuse of the process of the courts. The court had to be satisfied that the respondent had ‘habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings’. ‘Habitually’ would suggest that the institution of legal proceedings occurred as a matter of course, or almost automatically when the appropriate conditions existed. ‘Persistently’ would suggest determination, and continuing in the face of difficulty or opposition, with a degree of stubbornness. Proceedings were regarded as ‘vexatious’ if, irrespective of the motive of the litigant, they were so obviously untenable as to be utterly hopeless: at [23] and [24] .

(2) S 995/2004 (in so far as part of the amended statement of claim continued to pertain to judicial review), CA 87/2005, SUM 5332/2011, CA 31/2012, OS 1246/2013, and SUM 5748/2014 were multiple attempts by Mdm Lai to re-litigate her claims for judicial review and under her employment contract despite these matters being res judicata.These proceedings were thus instituted without reasonable ground in that Mdm Lai had no valid basis to re-litigate matters that had already been decided, and were vexatious in that they were obviously untenable. They were brought ‘habitually’ in that Mdm Lai instituted them almost as a matter of course. They were also brought ‘persistently’ in that Mdm Lai pursued them over roughly 15 years, unfazed by the obstacles she faced in succeeding on her applications: at [43] and [44] .

(3) The court retained a discretion to decline making an order under s 74 (1) of the SCJA despite the statutory requirements being satisfied. The scope of the order sought presently was restricted to those matters arising from and/or connected to the termination of her employment at the Land Office. It was in the interest of the public and all the parties involved that an order under s 74 (1) be made against Mdm Lai: at [46] , [51] and [52] .

AG v Mah Kiat Seng [2013] 4 SLR 788 (folld)

AG v Tee Kok Boon [2008] 2 SLR (R) 412; [2008] 2 SLR 412 (folld)

Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313 (refd)

Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG [2005] SGHC 182 (refd)

Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG [2006] 2 SLR (R) 565; [2006] 2 SLR 565, CA (refd)

Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG [2008] 2 SLR (R) 794; [2008] 2 SLR 794, HC (refd)

Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG [2009] SGHC 38 (refd)

Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG [2010] SGHC 345 (refd)

Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG [2012] SGHC 47 (refd)

Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No 301 [2009] 1 SLR (R) 875; [2009] 1 SLR 875 (refd)

Linda Lai Swee Lin v Public Service Commission [2000] SGHC 162 (refd)

Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda [2001] 1 SLR (R) 133; [2001] 1 SLR 644 (refd)

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 21 r 2 (6) , O 57 r 9 (4)

State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 74 (1) (consd) ;ss 74, 74 (1) (b)

Zheng Shaokai, Ruth Yeo and Germaine Boey (Attorney-General's Chambers) for theplaintiff

Defendant in person.

Judgment reserved.

Woo Bih Li J

Introduction

1 The defendant in Originating Summons No 1014 of 2014 (‘OS 1014/2014’), Mdm Linda Lai Swee Lin (‘Mdm Lai’), is no stranger to the court. She has a long history of legal proceedings against the Government and other related entities spanning over the last 15 years relating to the circumstances surrounding the termination of her employment with the Land Office of the Ministry of Law (‘the Land Office’) in 1998. The Attorney-General (‘AG’) seeks to put an end to this protracted litigation via OS 1014/2014, which is an application under s 74 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) (‘SCJA’) for orders, inter alia, that:

(a) Mdm Lai shall not without the leave of the High Court commence legal proceedings in any court established by the SCJA or constituted under the State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) with respect to matters or legal proceedings against the Government (whether in the name of the Public Service Commission (‘PSC’), the AG or otherwise) in any way arising from and/or connected to:

(i) her employment at the Land Office from 28 November 1996 to 21 December 1998;

(ii) the extension of her probationary period as ‘Senior Officer Grade III’ retrospectively for one year with effect from 28 November 1997 to 27 November 1998;

(iii) the termination of her said employment by the ‘Senior Personnel Board F’ constituted under the Public Service (Special and Senior Personnel Boards) Order 1994 with effect from 21 December 1998;

(iv) her appeals to the Appeals Board constituted under the Public Service (Personnel Boards and Appeals Boards) Regulations 1994 (‘Appeals Board’) and the PSC; and/or

(v) the subject matter of the legal proceedings enumerated in Appendix A, which is appended to this judgment; and

(b) any such legal proceedings in any way arising from and/or connected to matters described in 1 (a) above instituted by Mdm Lai in any court before the making of this order shall not be continued by her without such leave, and such leave shall not be given unless the High Court is satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of process of the court and that there is prima facie ground for the proceedings.

Background facts

2 Mdm Lai was appointed as a Senior Officer Grade III at the Land Office on a one-year probationary period on 28 November 1996. This meant her probationary period was supposed to end on 27 November 1997. On 1 June 1998, Mdm Lai was informed by the then Commissioner of Lands that he would not be recommending her confirmation. Subsequently, Mdm Lai received a letter from the human resources division of the Land Office dated 19 August 1998 officially stating that she would not be confirmed in her appointment. The letter also informed Mdm Lai that her probation would retrospectively be extended for another year, ie,from 28 November 1997 to 27 November 1998. On 17 December 1998, Mdm Lai's employment was eventually terminated by the Senior Personnel Board F constituted under the Public Service (Special and Senior Personnel Boards) Order 1994 and she was given one month's remuneration in lieu of notice. Mdm...