Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam JB (No 2)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How J
• Judgment Date: 17 August 1990
• Neutral Citation: [1990] SGHC 54
• Docket Number: Motion in Suit No 1754 of 1988
• Date: 17 August 1990
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1990
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Kok Quan (Lee & Lee)
• Citation: [1990] SGHC 54
• Defendant Counsel: Defendant in person (JB Jeyaretnam & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Stay of execution,Stay of proceedings,Special circumstances,Strong grounds for appeal,Civil Procedure,Whether ground for granting stay of execution

Cur Adv Vult

By notice of motion which came up for hearing on 17 August 1990 the defendant in this suit applied for an order that all further proceedings and steps to execute a judgment given against him on 3 August 1990 be stayed until the determination of his appeal.

In his supporting affidavit, the defendant referred to the judgment of the High Court on 3 August 1990 by which he was ordered to pay $260,000 in damages for his slander of the plaintiff, together with interest at the rate of 6% pa from 1 September 1988 until judgment. [See [1990] SLR 688 .] He said that he believed and had been advised that there were substantial merits in his appeal, and he listed a number of grounds which he will repeat in his petition of appeal. He contended that these would constitute the special circumstances required by the court`s decision in Serangoon Garden Estate Ltd v Ang Keng [1953] MLJ 116 .

The successful plaintiff had on previous occasions announced an intention to donate whatever damages he might be awarded to charity, and, although the defendant was not aware that there had been a similar announcement on this occasion, he said that it was clear that the plaintiff was not in any need personally of the award. The plaintiff therefore could wait for the fruits of his victory, and would not suffer any prejudice if payment of the damages and interest was withheld until after the hearing of the appeal.

The plaintiff, however, the defendant went on to say in his affidavit, had demanded payment of the award by 4pm on 13 August 1990 and had refused to agree to a stay of execution. The defendant did not have the money readily available to pay the plaintiff as demanded, and he needed some time to raise the money. He had lodged his notice of appeal and he undertook to prosecute the appeal with all haste on his part once the record was supplied to him. He would also ask the court to direct that the appeal be put before the Court of Appeal as early as possible. In amplification of the averments in his affidavit, he submitted at the hearing of his motion that he was prepared to pay something or furnish some acceptable security within three or four weeks, as a condition for a stay. Counsel also cited Syarikat Berpakat v Lim Kai Kok [1983] 1 MLJ 406 and Dickson Trading (S) Pte Ltd v Transmarco Ltd [1989] 2 MLJ 408 .

One aspect of the law regarding such applications is clear: an appeal of itself does not operate as a stay of execution....