Jeyaretnam v Lee Kuan Yew: Striking Out Action for Want of Prosecution in Defamation Case
Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore against the dismissal of his application to strike out a defamation action (Suit No. 224 of 1997) initiated by Lee Kuan Yew. The defamation claim arose from statements made on 1 January 1997. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA and L P Thean JA, dismissed the appeal, finding that while there was inordinate delay by Lee Kuan Yew in prosecuting the action, it did not amount to an abuse of process, and the limitation period had not expired.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal to strike out defamation action for want of prosecution dismissed. Delay was inordinate but did not amount to abuse of process.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam |
| Lee Kuan Yew | Respondent | Individual | Application to Strike Out Action Dismissed | Won | Davinder Singh, Hri Kumar |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| L P Thean | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam | Independent Practitioner |
| Davinder Singh | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Hri Kumar | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Lee Kuan Yew sued Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam for defamation over a statement made on 1 January 1997.
- Ten other plaintiffs also sued Jeyaretnam for defamation over the same statement in seven separate actions.
- The actions were set down for trial, with Suit No. 225 of 1997 to be tried first.
- The hearing ended on 22 August 1997, and judgment was reserved.
- All plaintiffs except Jeyaretnam agreed to be bound by the court’s determination in Suit No. 225 of 1997.
- The Court of Appeal varied the meaning of the defamatory words.
- There was a lapse of about 2 years and 4 months with no further steps taken by the plaintiffs.
- Jeyaretnam applied to strike out Lee Kuan Yew’s action for want of prosecution.
5. Formal Citations
- Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam v Lee Kuan Yew, CA 600023/2001, RA 600021/01 in Suit 224/1997, [2001] SGHC 233
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defamatory statement made by Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam | |
| Lee Kuan Yew sued Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam for defamation | |
| Actions set down for trial | |
| Order made for Suit No. 225 of 1997 to be tried first | |
| Trial commenced | |
| Hearing ended and judgment was reserved | |
| Judgment delivered in Suit No. 225 of 1997 | |
| Appeals heard | |
| Court of Appeal judgment delivered | |
| Respondent's solicitors wrote to appellant's solicitors | |
| Respondent filed application in summons-in-chambers No. 604665 of 2000 | |
| Appellant filed application in summon-in-chambers No. 604770 of 2000 | |
| Applications heard before the senior assistant registrar | |
| Appellant’s appeal heard before Lai Siu Chiu J | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking Out Action for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome: The court held that while there was inordinate and inexcusable delay, it did not amount to an abuse of process, and the action should not be struck out.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Inordinate and inexcusable delay
- Abuse of process
- Prejudice to defendant
- Interpretation of Rules of Court
- Outcome: The court held that amendments to procedural rules affect the rights of parties retrospectively and that the repealed rule did not apply.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of repealed rules
- Retrospective effect of procedural amendments
8. Remedies Sought
- Striking out of action
- Damages for defamation
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 547 | Singapore | Cited for the judgment of Rajendran J regarding the meaning of the defamatory words. |
| Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 337 | Singapore | Cited for the Court of Appeal's judgment varying the meaning of the defamatory words. |
| Turnbull v Forman | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | (1885) 15 QBD 234 | England and Wales | Followed for the principle that amendments to procedural rules affect the rights of parties retrospectively. |
| R v Chandra Dharma | Court of King's Bench | Yes | [1905] 2 KB 335 | England and Wales | Followed for the principle that statutes which make alterations in procedure are retrospective. |
| Birkett v James | House of Lords | Yes | [1977] 2 All ER 801 | England and Wales | Followed 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 & Sons Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1968] 1 All ER 543 | England and Wales | Followed 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 (the administrator of the estate of Lee Wai Leng, deceased) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 232 | Singapore | Followed and applied the principles in Birkett v James in dealing with an application for striking out an action. |
| Grovit and Ors v Doctor and Ors | House of Lords | Yes | [1997] 2 All ER 417 | England and Wales | Referred to regarding abuse of process as a ground for striking out an action. |
| The Tokai Maru | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 105 | Singapore | Considered Grovit and came to the conclusion that the delay did not amount to an abuse of process. |
| Arbuthnot Latham Bank Ltd and Ors v Tralfalgar Holdings Ltd and Ors | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 All ER 181 | England and Wales | Considered regarding inordinate delay as a ground for striking out an action. |
| Culbert v Stephen G Westwell & Company Ltd and Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] PIQR P 54 | England and Wales | Referred to regarding abuse of process. |
| QCD (M) Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Wah Nam Plastic Industry Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 381 | Singapore | Considered Arbuthnot Latham Bank. |
| Syed Mohamed Abdul Muthaliff and Anor v Arjan Bhisham Chotrani | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 750 | Singapore | Mentioned but found not relevant. |
| Yeo Hock Chuan v Wong Chong Weng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 752 | Singapore | Re-affirmed the principle that the defendant can wait for the opportune moment to apply to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for want of prosecution. |
| Barclays Bank plc v Maling and Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | (unreported, 23 April 1997) | England and Wales | Discussed the issue of abuse of process. |
| Miles v McGregor | Court of Appeal | Yes | (unreported, 23 January 1998) | England and Wales | Discussed the issue of abuse of process. |
| Choraria v Sethia | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1998) 142 SJLB 53 | England and Wales | Discussed the issue of abuse of process. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court O 3, r 5 |
| Rules of Court O 21, rr 2(6) and 2(7) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1999 Ed) ss 16(1)(c) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1999 Ed) s 18 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Defamation
- Striking out
- Want of prosecution
- Inordinate delay
- Abuse of process
- Limitation period
- Rules of Court
- Contumelious conduct
15.2 Keywords
- defamation
- striking out
- want of prosecution
- delay
- abuse of process
- rules of court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Defamation
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Defamation Law