Chee Siok Chin v Attorney-General: Constitutionality of Rules of Court Amendment & Right to Fair Hearing
Chee Siok Chin and Chee Soon Juan brought an originating summons in the High Court of Singapore against the Attorney-General, challenging the constitutionality of the repeal of Order 14 Rule 1(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, which had precluded summary judgment in defamation cases. The plaintiffs argued that the repeal breached their right to a fair trial. Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean dismissed the originating summons on its merits, finding no constitutional violation or breach of natural justice, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed with costs to be taxed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Chee Siok Chin's originating summons challenging the constitutionality of repealing a rule precluding summary judgment in defamation cases.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Defendant | Government Agency | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Jeffrey Chan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Hsien Loong | Plaintiff | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | Davinder Singh SC of Independent Practitioner |
| Chee Soon Juan | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Chee Siok Chin | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lee Kuan Yew | Plaintiff | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | Davinder Singh SC of Independent Practitioner |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jeffrey Chan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Davinder Singh SC | Independent Practitioner |
| M Ravi | M Ravi & Co |
4. Facts
- Chee Siok Chin and Chee Soon Juan filed an originating summons against the Attorney-General.
- The summons challenged the repeal of Order 14 Rule 1(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970.
- Order 14 Rule 1(2) had precluded summary judgment in fraud and defamation cases.
- The plaintiffs argued the repeal was unconstitutional and breached natural justice.
- The plaintiffs' counsel applied for the originating summons to be heard in open court.
- The judge declined to hear the originating summons in open court.
- The plaintiffs and their counsel walked out of the chambers hearing.
- The judge dismissed the originating summons on its merits.
5. Formal Citations
- Chee Siok Chin and Another v Attorney-General, OS 1203/2006, [2006] SGHC 153
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 (GN No S 274/1970) enacted. | |
| Rules of the Supreme Court (Amendment No 2) Rules 1991 (GN No S 281/1991) came into operation. | |
| Mr. Ravi requested to re-fix the hearing date of the O 14 summonses. | |
| Mr. Singh objected to re-fixing the hearing date of the O 14 summonses. | |
| High Court Registry asked the parties to make the necessary application to the judge hearing the matters. | |
| Registrar decided for the OS and O 14 summonses to be heard simultaneously. | |
| Plaintiffs and their counsel walked out of the chambers hearing of the OS. | |
| Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ recusal application. | |
| Originating Summons dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Constitutionality of Repeal of Order 14 Rule 1(2)
- Outcome: The court held that the repeal of Order 14 Rule 1(2) was constitutional.
- Category: Constitutional
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that the repeal of Order 14 Rule 1(2) did not breach the principles of natural justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Recusal of Judge
- Outcome: The court refused the application for recusal, finding no basis for actual bias.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaratory Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Constitutional Challenge
- Breach of Natural Justice
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeyaretnam JB v AG | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 610 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for hearing originating summonses in chambers. |
| Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] QB 451 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the difficulty of proving actual bias and the lesser burden of showing a real danger of bias. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 233 | Singapore | Cited as a local case where actual bias was alleged. |
| Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 97 | Singapore | Cited regarding the duty of lawyers to the court and the need for vigilance by the court whenever recusal applications based on actual bias or apparent bias are made. |
| Blue Nile Co Ltd v Emery Customs Brokers (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 454 | Singapore | Cited for pointing out the anomaly of Order 14 r 1(2) in Singapore, which led to its amendment. |
| Derry v Peek | House of Lords | Yes | [1889] 14 App Cas 337 | United Kingdom | Cited for defining fraud in the context of Order 14 r 1(2)(b) of the RSC 1970. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1990] SLR 38 | Singapore | Cited for the restriction of freedom of speech and expression in Art 14(1)(a) of the Constitution by the common law claim for defamation. |
| Skink Ltd v Comtowell Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 HKC 286 | Hong Kong | Cited by Mr. Ravi in support of his contention that O 14 proceedings are wholly inappropriate for defamation actions. |
| Skink Ltd v Comtowell Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1994] 1 HKC 646 | Hong Kong | Cited for the decision of Kaplan J regarding the scope of O 14 r 1(2)(b) of the Hong Kong Rules of the Supreme Court. |
| Microsoft Corp v SM Summit Holdings Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 529 | Singapore | Cited for explaining the two questions that arise in a defamation action with a jury trial. |
| Bank of China v Asiaweek Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1991] SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited for illustrating the summary power of the court to strike out a defence to a defamatory action under O 18 r 19. |
| Ramaiah Naragatha Vally v Singapore Press Holdings Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 497 | Singapore | Cited for illustrating the summary power of the court to strike out a claim for libel under O 18 r 19. |
| Swain v Hillman | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 All ER 91 | United Kingdom | Cited for Lord Woolf MR's comments on the importance and usefulness of CPR Pt 24 in the administration of justice. |
| Scott v Scott | House of Lords | Yes | [1913] AC 417 | United Kingdom | Cited by Mr. Ravi regarding the virtues of a public trial. |
| Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department | House of Lords | Yes | [1983] 1 AC 280 | United Kingdom | Cited by Mr. Ravi regarding the virtues of a public trial. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 (GN No S 274/1970) | Singapore |
| Rules of the Supreme Court (Amendment No 2) Rules 1991 (GN No S 281/1991) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Defamation Act (Cap 75, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Originating Summons
- Summary Judgment
- Defamation
- Constitutionality
- Natural Justice
- Recusal
- Actual Bias
- Rules of Court
- Rules Committee
15.2 Keywords
- constitutional law
- civil procedure
- deafamation
- summary judgment
- natural justice
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Natural justice | 90 |
| Constitutional Law | 85 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Jurisdiction | 60 |
| Legal Profession Act | 50 |
| Costs | 30 |
| Kompetenz-Kompetenz | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
- Defamation Law