Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Valerie Thean J
• Judgment Date: 07 October 2022
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 226 of 2021 (Registrar's Appeal No 351 of 2021)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie

and

National University of Singapore

[2022] SGHC 247

Valerie Thean J

Originating Summons No 226 of 2021 (Registrar's Appeal No 351 of 2021)

General Division of the High Court

Civil Procedure — Inherent powers — Plaintiff arguing that prior judgment was tainted by perjury — Whether prior judgment should be set aside on grounds that it was obtained by fraud

Civil Procedure — Striking out — Plaintiff arguing that prior judgment was tainted by perjury — Whether claim was factually or legally sustainable

Res Judicata — Extended doctrine of res judicata — Plaintiff seeking to make arguments made in previous suit but not determined — Whether plaintiff's arguments barred by extended doctrine of res judicata

Res Judicata — Issue estoppel — Plaintiff seeking to make arguments made in previous suit but not determined — Whether plaintiff's arguments barred by issue estoppel

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) For issue estoppel to arise, there had to be identity of subject matter in the two proceedings. In this regard, there was a distinction between issues that were no more than steps in a process of reasoning and those which were so cardinal that the decision could not stand without them. Nothing but what was legally indispensable to the conclusion was finally closed or precluded: at [29] and [31].

(2) Issue estoppel did not apply because the issue of whether NUS's witnesses committed perjury was not fundamental to the decision in the Judgment. In this case, the Judgment contained no specific determination on Ms Ten's perjury allegations because such a determination was not necessary to the court's decision While Woo J's findings could have indicated that he disagreed with Ms Ten's allegations of perjury, this logical connection fell short of establishing identity of subject matter for the purposes of issue estoppel. Any disagreement with Ms Ten's perjury allegations was implicit rather than expressed in a determination that could be said to be cardinal to Woo J's conclusion. Therefore, Woo J did not specifically determine Ms Ten's allegations of perjury in the Judgment: at [32], [34] and [40].

(3) The rule from Henderson v Henderson(1843) 3 Hare 100 extended the breadth of the doctrine of res judicata. For policy reasons, such as the courts' concern with managing and preventing multiplicity of litigation so as to ensure justice was achieved for all, the rule from Henderson applied to a wider range of scenarios. It was not the case that a matter had to have not been raised in earlier proceedings for the doctrine of abuse of process to apply. This would lead to legal absurdity because a litigant could thereby escape the ambit of the extended doctrine by simply raising irrelevant issues in litigation which were, for obvious reasons, eventually not determined: at [39] and [62].

(4) What Ms Ten had raised before she was not permitted to raise again. The purpose of the extended doctrine was to limit abusive and duplicative litigation. The extended doctrine operated as a bar to the OS unless there were matters of fresh evidence that warranted re-litigation or bona fide reasons why Ms Ten should be allowed to advance her argument again: at [40] and [41].

(5) The OS was barred by the extended doctrine of res judicata. In the OS, Ms Ten had not brought any new evidence forward. She had again sought to establish fraud by pointing to the documentary evidence that was before the court in Suit 667, and the findings in the Judgment itself. The primary purpose of the OS was to advance a case that Suit 667 was wrongly decided on the evidence that was before it. This amounted to nothing more than an impermissible collateral attack on the Judgment: at [43] to [45].

(6) In order to raise, in a new action, the contention that an earlier judgment was tainted by fraud and in particular perjury on the part of witnesses, there had to be exceptional fresh evidence. There was no fresh evidence that Ms Ten sought to rely on in the OS. She sought to make the same arguments that her counsel pressed in Suit 667 and did not seek to rely on any new evidence that was not before the court in Suit 667. The OS therefore had to be struck out: at [48], [50] and [51].

Case(s) referred to

Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 (refd)

BOI v BOJ [2018] 2 SLR 1156 (folld)

BWG v BWF [2020] 1 SLR 1296 (refd)

Chee Siok Chin v AG [2006] 4 SLR(R) 541; [2006] 4 SLR 541 (refd)

Ching Chew Weng Paul v Ching Pui Sim [2011] 3 SLR 869 (folld)

Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453; [2007] 1 SLR 453 (folld)

Harmonious Coretrades Pte Ltd v United Integrated Services Pte Ltd [2020] 1 SLR 206 (folld)

Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 (refd)

Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529 (refd)

Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan [2017] 2 SLR 760 (refd)

Ong Cher Keong v Goh Chin Soon Ricky [2001] 1 SLR(R) 213; [2001] 2 SLR 94 (refd)

Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Highland Financial Partners LP [2013] 1 CLC 596 (refd)

Royal Bank of Scotland NV, The v TT International Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 1104 (refd)

Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Chew [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673; [2007] 3 SLR 673 (distd)

Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd [2019] 2 WLR 984 (distd)

Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore [2018] SGHC 158 (refd)

TOW v TOV [2017] 3 SLR 725 (refd)

Watt v Ahsan [2008] 1 AC 696 (refd)

Yee Heng Khay v Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC(A) 20 (refd)

Facts

In 2002, Ms Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie (“Ms Ten”) was a candidate for the degree of Masters of Arts (Architecture) by research at the School of Design and Environment of the National University of Singapore (“NUS”). Ms Ten was required to complete a thesis in order to graduate from the course. Dr Wong Yunn Chii (“Dr Wong”) was Ms Ten's sole supervisor for her thesis.

Ms Ten raised a complaint about Dr Wong's conduct with NUS. She dealt with a number of NUS officers regarding the complaint, including Professor Lily Kong (“Prof Kong”) and Professor Ang Siau Gek (“Prof Ang”). A Committee of Inquiry (“COI”) was set up to look into Ms Ten's complaint. The COI concluded that, amongst other things, Dr Wong had failed to comply fully with his duties as Ms Ten's supervisor, and recommended that he be censured for this failure. When conveying the findings of the COI to Ms Ten, Prof Kong did not mention this finding of the COI. Communication between Prof Kong and Ms Ten continued, with Ms Ten complaining that the COI's process was inadequate and lacked transparency. There were further disagreements between Ms Ten and NUS about the requirements that she needed to fulfil to receive her degree. Eventually, on 4 September 2006, NUS terminated Ms Ten's candidature with immediate effect before she obtained her degree.

In 2012, Ms Ten brought suit against NUS to award her the degree and claimed damages for breach of contract, misfeasance in public office, intimidation and negligence (“Suit 667”). On 9 July 2018, all of Ms Ten's claims were dismissed by Woo Bih Li J (as he then was) in Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore[2018] SGHC 158 (the “Judgment”).

Ms Ten did not file a notice of appeal against the Judgment before the prescribed deadline under the applicable Rules of Court at the time. More than two years later, on 11 August 2020, Ms Ten filed an application to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the Judgment (“OS 25”). The Court of Appeal dismissed OS 25.

Prior to OS 25, on 27 December 2019, NUS had served a statutory demand on Ms Ten in respect of debts arising from costs orders made against Ms Ten during Suit 667. On 9 January 2020, Ms Ten filed an application to set aside the statutory demand (“OSB 3”). After OS 25 was dismissed, an assistant registrar dismissed OSB 3. Ms Ten's appeal against the assistant registrar's decision (“RA 316”) was dismissed by Andre Maniam JC (as he then was) on 25 January 2021.

Two months after RA 316, Ms Ten commenced Originating Summons No 226 of 2021 (the “OS”), claiming that the Judgment was tainted by fraud upon the court in the form of perjury by NUS's witnesses in Suit 667. Ms Ten sought, amongst other things, the setting aside of the Judgment in Suit 667, the decision OSB 3, the decision in RA 316 and other applications filed by NUS.

Upon an application by NUS, the OS was struck out by an assistant registrar (the “AR”) on 16 December 2021. Ms Ten appealed against the AR's decision.

Legislation referred to

Rules of Court (2006 Rev Ed) O 57 r 4

Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 18 r 19 (consd)

Appellant in person;

Charlene Wong Su-Yi and Tay Jia Yi Pesdy (Drew & Napier LLC) for the respondent.

7 October 2022

Judgment reserved.

Valerie Thean J:

Introduction

1 This is an appeal against an assistant registrar's order striking out Originating Summons No 226 of 2021 (the “OS”). The appellant, Ms Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie (“Ms Ten”) previously brought action against the respondent, the National University of Singapore (“NUS”). This suit was dismissed on 9 July 2018: Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore[2018] SGHC 158 (the “Judgment”). In the OS, Ms Ten seeks to set aside the Judgment on the premise that it was tainted by fraud because of perjury on the part of NUS's witnesses. Having heard parties and considered their arguments, I now dismiss the appeal.

Background

Suit 667 and the Judgment

2 Ms Ten commenced proceedings against NUS on 8 August 2012 (“Suit 667”).

3 The detailed facts giving rise to Suit 667 can be found at [7]–[91] of the Judgment. For the purposes of this appeal, the following brief facts are relevant. Commencing 7 January 2002, Ms Ten was a candidate for the degree of Masters of Arts (Architecture) by research at the School of Design and Environment of NUS. It was a requirement that Ms Ten complete a thesis in order to graduate from the course. Dr Wong Yunn Chii (“Dr...