Lee Kuan Yew v Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Siu Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 20 March 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 52
• Published date: 14 March 2013
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Davinder Singh SC with Hri Kumar (Drew & Napier)
• Defendant Counsel: The defendant (in person)

JUDGMENT:

Grounds of Decision

The background

1. The defendant applied in person by summons in chambers entered no. 604770 of 2000 (the defendant's application) on 22 December 2000 to strike out this action for want of prosecution. The defendant's application was dismissed by James Leong the Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) on 19 January 2001. The defendant appealed against the decision of the SAR in Registrar's Appeal no. 600021 of 2001 (the appeal). I heard and dismissed, the appeal on 13 February 2001. The defendant has now filed a notice of appeal (in Civil Appeal no. 600023 of 2001) against my decision.

The facts

2. The plaintiff in this action is the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office and a Cabinet Minister of the Government of Singapore. He was the former Prime Minister of Singapore. The defendant is and was at the material time, the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party; he was (until April 2000) also an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore.

3. The plaintiff sued the defendant for defamation arising out of certain remarks made by the defendant at an election rally of the Workers' Party held on 1 January 1997 (the election rally), which was the eve of polling day for the 1997 general elections. The defendant, together with one Tang Liang Hong (Tang) and three (3) other members of the Workers' Party, contested the electoral constituency of Cheng San GRC in the 1997 elections, against a team of five (5) candidates from the People's Action Party (PAP).

4. In addition to this action, the defendant was sued for defamation (over the speeches he made at the election rally) by various government leaders in seven (7) other suits (the other suits); these included the Prime Minister, some Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament and the PAP candidates who contested the 1997 elections. The plaintiff as well as the plaintiffs in the other suits, agreed to be bound by the outcome of the Prime Minister's case against the defendant in Suit No. 225 of 1997 (the Main Suit). The Main Suit, this action and the other suits were set down for trial on or about 9 June 1997. Trial dates were fixed for 18 August to 2 September 1997. By an Order of Court dated 18 July 1997, it was ordered that the Main Suit should be heard first.

5. The Main Suit was tried between 18 and 22 August 1997 before Rajendran J. At the close of the trial, counsel for the plaintiff (as well as for the plaintiffs in the other suits) informed Rajendran J who recorded it at para 201 in his judgment (see Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin [1998] 1 SLR 547 at p 605) that the ten (10) plaintiffs agreed to be bound by his findings on the meaning of the words alleged to be defamatory; the defendant did not state his stand on the issue. In September 1997, Rajendran J delivered his judgment; the Prime Minister appealed (in Civil Appeal No. 205 of 1997) and the defendant cross-appealed (in Civil Appeal No. 218 of 1997) against his decision. Both appeals were heard in April 1998 and judgment was reserved. On 17 July 1998, the Court of Appeal allowed the Prime Minister's appeal but dismissed the defendant's cross-appeal (see Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin [1998] 3 SLR 337).

6. On 14 December 2000, the plaintiff applied by notice for further directions no. 604665 of 2000 (the plaintiff's application) under Order 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court for a determination of the natural, ordinary and innuendo meanings of the defamatory words set out in para 17 of the statement of claim in this suit. Paragraph 17 of the statement of claim reads as follows:

The defendant was the last to speak at the Rally. While the defendant was speaking, Tang was seen walking up to him and whispering to him. Shortly thereafter, and as the defendant was ending his speech, he held up the said police reports or document(s) purporting to be the said police reports, and spoke the following (underlined) defamatory words ("the Words") of and concerning, inter alia, the plaintiff to a highly charged audience:-

'We don't want any complaint from the police, but it's important, my friends -- I am glad you are listening quietly, that you leave quietly, but please win this battle for yourself and not for the Workers' Party, and finally, Mr Tang Liang Hong has just placed before me two reports he has made to the police against, you know, Mr Goh Chok Tong and his team. But just remember, have one thing on your mind, one purpose, one will -- that it is not for Mr Tang Liang Hong or for me, or for the Workers' Party that you are voting. You are voting for yourself".

7. In Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin [1998] 3 SLR 337, the Court of Appeal had found that the Words, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean:

Mr Tang being a lawyer and a politician, having avowed to protect his reputation and integrity had taken a serious step and made police reports against Mr Goh and that it would be likely that the police would investigate into some wrongdoings alleged in the reports on the part of Mr Goh.

and by innuendo that:

Mr Goh had done something seriously wrong in launching the attacks against Mr Tang and that Mr Goh would be likely to be investigated for the offence or offences alleged in the reports

8. In his affidavit filed in support of the plaintiff's application, Hri Kumar of the plaintiff's solicitors exhibited a letter dated 7 December 2000, which his firm had written to the defendant's then solicitors G Krishnan & Co; it contained the following paragraphs:-

Please confirm that your client agrees that the defamatory meanings found by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeals Nos. 205 and 218 of 1997 shall apply to our client's action in Suit No. 224 of 1997.

Please let us hear from you before 5.00 pm on 12 December 2000.

9. By way of a reply to the above letter, the plaintiff's solicitors were extended a copy of, G Krishnan & Co's letter to M/s Leo Fernando dated 7 December 2000 requesting the latter to file the appropriate Notice of Change of Solicitors and take over the matter However, as at 14 December 2000 when the plaintiff's application was filed, no response was received from M/s Leo Fernando; neither did the firm file a Notice of Change of Solicitors.

10. On 16 December 2000, G Krishnan & Co applied to court to discharge themselves from further acting for the defendant; their application was granted on 20 December 2000.

11. On the same day (19 January 2001) that he dismissed the defendant's application, the SAR granted the plaintiff's application; the defendant did not appeal against the latter decision. On that day too, the defendant was adjudged a bankrupt in Bankruptcy No. 2491 of 2000. His appeal against the bankruptcy order was dismissed on 7 February 2001.

The submissions

12. At the hearings before me and the SAR, the defendant submitted that the plaintiff (and those in the other suits) had done nothing for three (3) years since, the allocation of trial dates and Rajendran J's judgment...