Yan Jun v AG

Judgment Date14 November 2013
Date14 November 2013
Docket NumberSuit No 257 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 227 of 2013)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Yan Jun
Plaintiff
and
Attorney-General
Defendant

[2013] SGHC 245

Woo Bih Li J

Suit No 257 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 227 of 2013)

High Court

Constitutional Law—Fundamental liberties—Right to life and personal liberty—21 hours had elapsed from time of plaintiff's arrest to time of his release on bail—Police decided to take no further action against plaintiff—Plaintiff was not charged—Whether plaintiff, once arrested, had to be brought before magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest, even though he had been released before 24 hours was up—Article 9 (4) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed)

Limitation of Actions—Particular causes of action—Tort—Police officers allegedly arrested plaintiff based on account of plaintiff's wife without listening to his side of story—Whether plaintiff's claims were based on breaches of duties under ss 24 A (1) and 24 A (2) Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) —Whether plaintiff's claims included damages in respect of personal injuries—Whether plaintiff had required knowledge for bringing action for damages—Section 24 A Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)

Tort—Abuse of process—Police officers allegedly arrested plaintiff based on account of plaintiff's wife without listening to his side of story—21 hours had elapsed from time of plaintiff's arrest to time of his release on bail—Police decided to take no further action against plaintiff—Plaintiff was not charged—Whether judicial process was engaged when plaintiff was not prosecuted

Tort—Defamation—Qualified privilege—Police officers arrested plaintiff and sent him for medical examination—Doctor asked how plaintiff got injured and police officer answered that plaintiff breached personal protection order—Only three persons were in room—Whether defence of qualified privileged applied to police officer—Whether there was real and substantial tort

Tort—False imprisonment—Police officers allegedly arrested plaintiff based on account of plaintiff's wife without listening to his side of story—Whether wrongful arrest existed as separate and distinct tort from false imprisonment

Tort—Malicious prosecution—Police officers allegedly arrested plaintiff based on account of plaintiff's wife without listening to his side of story—21 hours had elapsed from time of plaintiff's arrest to time of his release on bail—Police decided to take no further action against plaintiff—Plaintiff was not charged—Whether there was prosecution of plaintiff

On 19 July 2009, Yan Jun (‘the Plaintiff’) called the police after he had quarrelled with his mother-in-law. Before the police arrived, the Plaintiff alleged that his wife Mdm Liu Tian (‘Mdm Liu’) hit him violently and repeatedly. Shortly thereafter, two police officers from the Singapore Police Force (‘SPF’) arrived. The plaintiff alleged that the police officers ignored his allegation that Mdm Liu hit him, did not listen to his side of the story, and arrested him purportedly for breaking an expedited order (‘the EO’).

After a medical examination at the hospital, he was escorted to the police station for further investigation. The Plaintiff was released on bail in the morning of the following day, ie, 20 July 2009 at about 6.30 am. About 21 hours had elapsed from the time of the Plaintiff's arrest to the time of his release on bail, inclusive of the time spent on his medical examination.

On 5 October 2009, the Plaintiff received an e-mail from SPF informing him that after consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers (‘the Defendant’), the police had decided to take no further action against him and advised him to refrain from further acts of violence against Mdm Liu.

The Plaintiff filed Suit No 257 of 2013 (‘Suit’) alleging, inter alia, wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process, on the basis that the EO obtained by his wife had already expired before his arrest. According to him, the expiry was due to his wife failing to attend court on the return date of the EO. However, SPF maintained that neither the Plaintiff nor Mdm Liu mentioned this fact at any time between 19 July 2009 when the Plaintiff was arrested and 20 July 2009 when he was released on bail.

The Plaintiff also claimed in the Suit that he was defamed by a police officer when the officer answered ‘breach of PPO’ when the doctor examining the Plaintiff asked how the Plaintiff got injured. The Plaintiff also claimed that the doctor then intentionally humiliated the Plaintiff by announcing loudly thereafter the words ‘small injury’.

An assistant registrar (‘the AR’) struck out all the Plaintiff's claims except the claim for loss of liberty arising from false imprisonment. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against that decision.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Where an action was for breach of duty and the damages claimed included damages in respect of personal injuries, the limitation period for bringing such an action was three years: at [33] .

(2) The expression ‘breach of duty’ in s 24 A of the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) was used in a very broad sense to mean the commission of any tort because the tortfeasor was under a duty not to injure his neighbour in a way forbidden by law: at [36] and [42] .

(3) The Plaintiff's pleaded causes of action arose from the conduct of the police officers or officer who owed him a duty whether statutory and/or under the law of tort. The fact that the liability for the breach of duty might be strict or fault-based did not assist the Plaintiff: at [39] and [40] .

(4) Under s 24 A (2) of the Limitation Act, the three-year limitation period applied not only to a suit where all the damages claimed were in respect of personal injuries, but also to a suit, such as the current Suit, where merely some of the damages claimed were in respect of personal injuries: at [43] and [46] .

(5) The Plaintiff's cause of action would have accrued by 20 July 2009 and the three-year limitation period would expire on 19 July 2012, subject to s 24 A (2) (b): [48] .

(6) Section 24 A (2) (b) of the Limitation Act provided that the three-year limitation ran from the earliest date on which a plaintiff had the knowledge required for bringing an action for damages if that period expired later than that under s 24 A (2) (a): at [49] .

(7) Taking into account the Plaintiff's knowledge, the three-year limitation under s 24 A (2) (b) would expire on 28 October 2012: at [53] and [54] .

(8) In the present case, there was no criminal charge made before a judicial officer or tribunal and the Plaintiff was also not charged. Therefore, there was no prosecution to support the Plaintiff's action in malicious prosecution: at [61] and [62] .

(9) Article 9 (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed) required the relevant authority to produce a person who was arrested before a magistrate within 48 hours from the time of his arrest if he had not been released by then. Once the Plaintiff had been released before the 48 hours were up, the provision ceased to apply: at [67] .

(10) In specific instances, an abuse of process was actionable as a tort. The concept of abuse of process allowed the courts to control their own proceedings to prevent abuse, and hence the concept should only be engaged when the judicial process had been engaged: at [72] and [75] .

(11) In the present case, there was no abuse of process because the Plaintiff was not prosecuted, and hence the judicial process had not been engaged: at [76] .

(12) The defence of qualified privilege applied even if the police officer's remark constituted defamation because the officer had an interest or duty to communicate the information sought by the doctor, and the doctor had a corresponding interest or duty to receive the information: at [77] and [78] .

(13) There was no real and substantial tort because of the extremely limited publication of the remarks by the officer and the doctor: at [82] .

[Observation: Section 24 A of the Limitation Act would not apply where the injury merely provided the measure of the loss which the plaintiff had suffered, in contradistinction to a claim for damages in respect of personal injury: at [47] .]

A v Hoare [2008] 1 AC 844; [2008] 2 All ER 1 (refd)

Bennett v Greenland Houchen & Co [1998] PNLR 458 (folld)

Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946 (folld)

Kesavan Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd v S P Powerassets Limited [2011] SGDC 179 (folld)

Land Securities plc v Fladgate Fielder (a firm) [2010] 2 WLR 1265 (folld)

Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis [2008] 2 SLR (R) 239; [2008] 2 SLR 239 (folld)

Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 (folld)

Lian Kok Hong v Ow Wah Foong [2008] 4 SLR (R) 165; [2008] 4 SLR 165 (folld)

Padmore v Commissioner of Police (17 December 1996) (UK) (refd)

State of New South Wales v Williamson [2011] NSWCA 183 (refd)

Zainal bin Kuning v Chan Sin Mian Michael [1996] 2 SLR (R) 858; [1996] 3 SLR 121 (folld)

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 9 (4) (consd)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 32 (1) (a)

Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) ss 6 (1) , 24 A (consd) ;ss 2 (1) , 24 A (1) , 24 A (2)

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 18 r 19

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) ss 65 (8) , 65 (11)

Law Reform (Limitation of Actions, etc) Act 1954 (c 36) (UK)

Limitation Act 1980 (c 58) (UK) s 11 (1)

Plaintiff/appellant in person

Khoo Boo Jin and Low Tzeh Shyian Russell (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the defendant/respondent.

Woo Bih Li J

Introduction

1 Yan Jun (‘the Plaintiff’) commenced Suit No 257 of 2013 on 1 April 2013 against the Attorney-General (‘the Defendant’), claiming damages for:

(a) wrongful arrest;

(b) false imprisonment;

(c) assault and battery;

(d) excessive use of force;

(e) defamation;

(f) malicious prosecution; and

(g) abuse of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Suresh s/o Suppiah v Jiang Guoliang
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 11 July 2016
    ...She then decided to follow the apparent approach of the High Court in two relatively recent cases (Yan Jun v Attorney-General [2014] 1 SLR 793 (“Yan Jun”) and Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2827 v GBI Realty Pte Ltd and another [2014] 3 SLR 229 (“GBI Realty”)) and computed the ......
  • Yan Jun v Attorney-General
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 27 November 2014
    ...The appeal was heard, and dismissed, by the Judge on 21 August 2013, with written grounds reported in Yan Jun v Attorney-General [2014] 1 SLR 793 (“the GD”). The Judge held (at [46]) that the Appellant’s entire suit was time-barred under ss 24A(1) and (2) of the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 199......
  • Yan Jun v Attorney-General
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 27 November 2014
    ...The appeal was heard, and dismissed, by the Judge on 21 August 2013, with written grounds reported in Yan Jun v Attorney-General [2014] 1 SLR 793 (“the GD”). The Judge held (at [46]) that the Appellant’s entire suit was time-barred under ss 24A(1) and (2) of the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 199......
  • Suresh s/o Suppiah v Jiang Guoliang
    • Singapore
    • Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
    • 2 October 2015
    ...The Defendant’s counsel referred in particular to a High Court decision that deals with section 24A. This is Yan Jun v Attorney-General [2014] 1 SLR 793 (“Yan Jun”). At [48], Woo Bih Li J made it clear the Plaintiff’ s cause of action for damages claimed in respect of personal injuries woul......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Tort Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...no evidence of the danger of further publications, the application for injunctive relief was denied. 24.24 In Yan Jun v Attorney-General[2014] 1 SLR 793 (‘Yan Jun’), the plaintiff brought a number of actions (wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, assault and battery, excessive use of force, ......
  • REPUTATION AND DEFAMATORY MEANING ON THE INTERNET
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...58[2001] EMLR 46. 59Lukowiak v Unidad Editorial (No 1)[2001] EMLR 46 at [47], per Eady J. 60 See paras 24-47 below. 61[2005] QB 946. 62[2014] 1 SLR 793. 63[2011] SGDC 179. See also Yan Jun v Attorney-General[2014] 1 SLR 793. 64Payam Tamiz v Google Inc[2013] EWCA Civ 68;Davidson v Habeeb[201......
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...the conditions set by the Housing and Development Board (‘HDB’)) for the purposes of owning an HDB flat); Yan Jun v Attorney-General[2014] 1 SLR 793 (claims struck out because of expiry of limitation period); JR Marine Systems Pte Ltd v Rankine Bernadette Adeline[2013] SGHC 277 (the claims ......
  • EVOLVING PERSONAL TORTS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...and Communities”(2015) 27 SAcLJ 694 at 709–722. 50 See s 1 of the English Defamation Act 2013 (c 26) and Yan Jun v Attorney-General[2014] 1 SLR 793. 51 According to Sim v Stretch[1936] 2 All ER 1237. 52 See, eg, Lawrence McNamara, Reputation and Defamation (Oxford University Press, 2007) ch......

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