Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
JudgeChan Sek Keong J
Judgment Date30 March 1990
Neutral Citation[1990] SGCA 4
Citation[1990] SGCA 4
Subject MatterCivil Procedure,Pleadings,Applicable principles same as that for striking out amended pleadings,Application for leave to amend defence after close of pleadings,Amendment,Whether amendment discloses reasonable defence
Plaintiff CounselAppellant in person (JB Jeyaretnam & Co)
Published date19 September 2003
Defendant CounselTan Kok Quan and Lee Han Tiong (Lee & Lee)
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 65 of 1990,Civil Appeal No 39 of 1989,Motion in Civil Appeal No 65 of 1990,Civil Appeal No 99 of 1991
Date30 November 1992

This appeal arose from the order of Lai Kew Chai J on 18 April 1989, dismissing an application made by the appellant, the defendant in the action, by way of a notice under summons for directions for leave to amend the defence. At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed the appeal. We now give our reasons.

The respondent`s claim against the appellant is for damages and an injunction in relation to an alleged slander published at an election rally of the Workers` Party held on 26 August 1988. Pleadings having closed, the respondent took out a summons for directions. By a notice under summons for directions, the appellant applied for leave to amend the defence by adding a new paragraph, to be renumbered as para 1 of the proposed amended defence in the following terms:

This action of the plaintiff seeks to restrict the defendant`s constitutional right given to him by art 14(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and is therefore an unlawful interference of the defendant`s fundamental rights contained in thesaid article and for that reason not maintainable.



By an order dated 18 April 1989, the learned judge dismissed the application. In his judgment, the learned judge accepted the submissions put forward on behalf of the respondent that leave should not be granted as the proposed amendment did not disclose an arguable defence and that it was an immaterial and useless amendment.

In this appeal, the appellant submitted that the learned judge should have allowed the amendment as any prejudice could have been compensated by costs, leaving it to the respondent, if so desired, to take out the application to strike out the amendment. We disagree. In our view, in a contested interlocutory application for leave to amend pleadings, the principles to be applied are the same as if the application before the court had been an application to strike out the amended pleadings. The question involved is the same. The test is whether the part to be added by amendment ought to be struck out as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
4 books & journal articles
  • Tort Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (the Constitution). The Court of Appeal in Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew[1990] 1 SLR(R) 337 and Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew[1992] 1 SLR(R) 791 decided that the right to freedom of speech under Art 14 of the Constitu......
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...the common law of defamation as modified by the Defamation Act (Cap 75, 1985 Rev Ed), following Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew[1990] SLR 38 at 39, [5]. The High Court rejected as ‘simply spurious’ the assertion that the O 14 summary procedure was per se unconstitutional: at [30]. ...
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...action of defamation was not unconstitutional, as the Court of Appeal explicitly affirmed in Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew[1990] 1 SLR(R) 337 (Jeyaretnam) at [59][61]. Furthermore, the common law of defamation in Singapore is modified by the Defamation Act (Cap 75, 1985 Rev Ed) ......
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 December 2017
    ...at [125]. 133 BNX v BOE [2017] SGHC 289 at [127]. 134 [2015] 5 SLR 1104 at [105]. 135 [2018] 3 SLR 498. 136 See para 8.36 above. 137 [1990] 1 SLR(R) 337 at [4]. 138 [2017] SGHC 271. 139 [2018] 3 SLR 356. 140 [2017] SGHCR 20. 141 [2016] 5 SLR 1091. 142 Invest-Ho Properties Pte Ltd v Karuppia......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT