Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew: Striking Out Action for Want of Prosecution in Defamation Case

In Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Mr. Jeyaretnam against the decision to dismiss his application to strike out Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's defamation action for want of prosecution. The court considered arguments related to non-compliance with procedural rules, the necessity of an application regarding the meaning of defamatory words, and whether the delay in prosecution warranted striking out the action. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no intentional or contumelious default, no prejudice to the appellant, and no abuse of process.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding striking out a defamation action for want of prosecution. The court considered delay, prejudice, and abuse of process.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Jeyaretnam Joshua BenjaminAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLostJeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin
Lee Kuan YewRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWonDavinder Singh, Hri Kumar

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
L P TheanJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jeyaretnam Joshua BenjaminIndependent Practitioner
Davinder SinghDrew & Napier LLC
Hri KumarDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. The respondent sued the appellant for defamation over a statement made at a Workers' Party rally on 1 January 1997.
  2. Ten other plaintiffs also sued the appellant for defamation over the same statement in seven separate actions.
  3. The actions were set down for trial, with Suit 224/97 (respondent's action) to be tried last.
  4. The plaintiffs agreed to be bound by the court's determination in Suit 225/97 as to the meaning of the words complained of.
  5. The appellant did not indicate whether he agreed to be similarly bound.
  6. There was a lapse of about two years and four months after the Court of Appeal's judgment during which no further steps were taken.
  7. The respondent's solicitors wrote to the appellant's solicitors asking if the appellant would agree to the meaning of the words found by the Court of Appeal.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew, CA 600023/2001, [2001] SGCA 55

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Statement made by the appellant at a Workers` Party rally
Respondent sued the appellant for defamation
Actions set down for trial
Order made for Suit 225/97 to be tried first
Hearing commenced before Rajendran J
Hearing ended and judgment was reserved
Judgment delivered in Suit 225/97
Appeals heard by the Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal handed down its judgment
Respondent's solicitors wrote to appellant's solicitors
Respondent filed an application in SIC 604665/2000
Appellant filed an application in SIC 604770/2000
Applications heard before the senior assistant registrar
Appellant's appeal heard before Lai Siu Chiu J
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Striking out action for want of prosecution
    • Outcome: The court held that the action should not be struck out for want of prosecution.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Inordinate and inexcusable delay
      • Prejudice to defendant
      • Abuse of court process
    • Related Cases:
      • [1978] AC 297
      • [1977] 2 All ER 801
      • [1968] 2 QB 229
      • [1968] 1 All ER 543
      • [1993] 2 SLR 232
  2. Effect of repeal of procedural rules
    • Outcome: The court held that the repeal of O 3 r 5 did not affect the respondent's right to proceed without giving notice.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1885] 15 QBD 234
      • [1905] 2 KB 335

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Striking out of action
  2. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua BenjaminHigh CourtYes[1998] 1 SLR 547SingaporeCited for the agreement of other plaintiffs to be bound by the court's determination of the meaning of the words complained of.
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua BenjaminCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR 337SingaporeCited for the Court of Appeal's judgment varying the meaning of the defamatory words.
Birkett v JamesHouse of LordsYes[1978] AC 297England and WalesCited for the principles applicable to striking out an action for want of prosecution.
Birkett v JamesHouse of LordsYes[1977] 2 All ER 801England and WalesCited for the principles applicable to striking out an action for want of prosecution.
Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & SonsCourt of AppealYes[1968] 2 QB 229England and WalesCited for the principles on which the court should exercise its power in striking out an action for want of prosecution.
Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & SonsCourt of AppealYes[1968] 1 All ER 543England and WalesCited for the principles on which the court should exercise its power in striking out an action for want of prosecution.
Wee Siew Noi v Lee Mun Tuck (administrator of the estate of Lee Wai Leng, decd)Court of AppealYes[1993] 2 SLR 232SingaporeCited for following and applying the principles in Birkett v James regarding striking out an action for want of prosecution.
Grovit v DoctorHouse of LordsYes[1997] 2 All ER 417England and WalesCited for the principle that commencing and continuing litigation with no intention to bring it to conclusion can amount to an abuse of process.
Grovit v DoctorHouse of LordsYes[1997] 1 WLR 640England and WalesCited for the principle that commencing and continuing litigation with no intention to bring it to conclusion can amount to an abuse of process.
The Tokai MaruCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR 105SingaporeConsidered Grovit and concluded that the delay did not amount to an abuse of process.
Arbuthnot Latham Bank v Trafalgar HoldingsCourt of AppealYes[1998] 2 All ER 181England and WalesCited for general observations touching on the matter of inordinate delay as a ground for striking out an action.
Arbuthnot Latham Bank v Trafalgar HoldingsCourt of AppealYes[1998] 1 WLR 1426England and WalesCited for general observations touching on the matter of inordinate delay as a ground for striking out an action.
QCD (M) (in liquidation) v Wah Nam Plastic IndustryHigh CourtYes[1999] 2 SLR 381SingaporeConsidered the principles in Birkett v James and Arbuthnot Latham Bank regarding striking out an action for want of prosecution.
Turnbull v FormanQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1885] 15 QBD 234England and WalesCited for the distinction between substantive and procedural rights.
R v Chandra DharmaKing's Bench DivisionYes[1905] 2 KB 335England and WalesCited for the principle that statutes which make alterations in procedure are retrospective.
Syed Mohamed Abdul Muthaliff v Arjan Bhisham ChotraniHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR 750SingaporeMentioned but found not relevant to the present case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court O 3 r 5
Rules of Court O 21 r 2(6)
Rules of Court O 21 r 2(7)
Rules of Court O 21 r 2(6)
Rules of Court O 21 r 2(6A)
Rules of Court O 21 r 2(6B)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1999 Ed)Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1999 Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Striking out
  • Want of prosecution
  • Inordinate delay
  • Inexcusable delay
  • Contumelious conduct
  • Abuse of process
  • Defamation
  • Limitation period
  • Rules of Court
  • Interpretation Act

15.2 Keywords

  • Striking out
  • Defamation
  • Civil procedure
  • Singapore
  • Appeal
  • Want of prosecution

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Defamation
  • Striking Out
  • Want of Prosecution

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Statutory Interpretation
  • Defamation Law