Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party: Extension of Time for Appeal and Waiver of Security Deposit
In Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an application by Dr. Chee Soon Juan for an extension of time to file an appeal against a summary judgment and for a waiver of the security deposit. The original defamation suit was brought by Mr. Lee Hsien Loong and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew against the Singapore Democratic Party and its members. The Court of Appeal, comprising Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, V K Rajah JA, and Woo Bih Li J, dismissed both applications, finding the delay unjustified and the appeal hopeless.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Applications dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Dr. Chee Soon Juan's application for an extension of time to appeal and a waiver of the security deposit.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Hsien Loong | Plaintiff, Respondent | Individual | Applications Dismissed | Won | Davinder Singh, Tan Gim Hai Adrian, Tan Ijin |
| Singapore Democratic Party | Defendant, Appellant | Association | Applications Dismissed | Lost | |
| Chee Siok Chin | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Applications Dismissed | Lost | |
| Chee Soon Juan | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Applications Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ling How Doong | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Applications Dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohamed Isa Abdul Aziz | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Applications Dismissed | Lost | |
| Christopher Neo Ting Wei | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Applications Dismissed | Lost | |
| Sng Choon Guan Gerald | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Applications Dismissed | Lost | |
| Wong Hong Toy | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Applications Dismissed | Lost | |
| Yong Chu Leong Francis | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Applications Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of Appeal | No |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Davinder Singh | Drew and Napier LLC |
| Tan Gim Hai Adrian | Drew and Napier LLC |
| Tan Ijin | Drew and Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Mr. Lee Hsien Loong sued the defendants for defamation in Suit No 261 of 2006.
- Mr. Lee Kuan Yew also sued the same defendants for defamation in Suit No 262 of 2006.
- The plaintiffs obtained summary judgment against the defendants on 12 September 2006.
- Dr. Chee applied for an extension of time to file appeals and a waiver of the security deposit on 8 May 2007.
- The deadline for filing notices of appeal was 12 October 2006.
- The applicant was involved in two criminal proceedings.
- The applicant claimed he lacked resources to handle the legal proceedings.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and Others and Another Suit, Suit 261/2006, 262/2006, SUM 1997/2007, 1998/2007, [2007] SGCA 51
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 (GN No S 274/1970) were enacted. | |
| Order 14 rule 1(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 was abrogated. | |
| Previous exchanges between Mr. Ravi and the learned judge in an unrelated case. | |
| Hearing of OS 1203/2006 and the summary judgment applications was fixed. | |
| Mr. Ravi wrote to the Registrar to refix the hearing date of the summary judgment applications. | |
| The Registrar replied to Mr. Ravi informing him that the hearing date of 16 August 2006 was to stand. | |
| The Judge heard the adjourned applications. | |
| Summary judgment applications were fixed to be heard before the Judge. | |
| Interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed was granted to the plaintiffs for both applications. | |
| The applicant wrote to the Chief Justice of Singapore. | |
| The Supreme Court replied to the applicant's letter. | |
| Deadline for filing notices of appeal against the Judge’s decisions on the summary judgment applications. | |
| The Judge’s written grounds for her decision on both the adjournment application and the summary judgment applications were delivered. | |
| Mr. Ravi provided the applicant with the 12 September 2006 minute sheet. | |
| The applicant wrote to the Chief Justice again. | |
| The Supreme Court replied to the applicant's letter. | |
| The present applications for extension of time for filing the notices of appeal were filed. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed both applications. |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that the delay of seven months was not justified, and no good reasons were given for the delay.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Length of delay
- Reasons for delay
- Chances of appeal succeeding
- Prejudice caused to respondent
- Waiver of Security Deposit
- Outcome: The court held that the security deposit is mandatory and cannot be waived.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to file appeals
- Waiver of security deposit
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Politics
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chee Siok Chin v AG | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 92 | Singapore | Cited regarding the recusal of the judge due to suspicion of bias. |
| Chee Siok Chin v AG | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 541 | Singapore | Cited regarding the adjournment applications and the conduct of the parties. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR 675 | Singapore | Cited for the Judge's written grounds for her decision on both the adjournment application and the summary judgment applications. |
| Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR 565 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable principles governing the jurisdiction of the court to extend the time for filing and/or serving a Notice of Appeal. |
| Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] SLR 212 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to ascertain whether the court should be persuaded to extend the time for filing and/or serving a Notice of Appeal. |
| Hau Khee Wee v Chua Kian Tong | High Court | Yes | [1986] SLR 484 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to ascertain whether the court should be persuaded to extend the time for filing and/or serving a Notice of Appeal. |
| Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd v Vithya Sri Sumathis | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 239 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to ascertain whether the court should be persuaded to extend the time for filing and/or serving a Notice of Appeal. |
| Tan Chiang Brother’s Marble (S) Pte Ltd v Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR 225 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to ascertain whether the court should be persuaded to extend the time for filing and/or serving a Notice of Appeal. |
| AD v AE | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 505 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to ascertain whether the court should be persuaded to extend the time for filing and/or serving a Notice of Appeal. |
| Ong Cheng Aik v Dayco Products Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR 561 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to ascertain whether the court should be persuaded to extend the time for filing and/or serving a Notice of Appeal. |
| Thamboo Ratnam v Thamboo Cumarasamy and Cumarasamy Ariamany d/o Kumarasa | Privy Council | Yes | [1965] 1 WLR 8 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the Rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed, with reasonable diligence being exercised. |
| The Melati | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR 7 | Singapore | Cited for the “paramount consideration” is the need for finality. |
| Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 46 | Singapore | Cited for the threshold for the chances of the appeal succeeding if time for appealing were extended. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd v Fraser & Neave Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 441 | Singapore | Cited for the threshold for the chances of the appeal succeeding if time for appealing were extended. |
| Denko-HLB Sdn Bhd v Fagerdala Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 3 SLR 357 | Singapore | Cited for the need for a satisfactory explanation for the delay in question. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] SGCA 3 | Singapore | Cited for the prejudice referred to in the four factors is the prejudice to the would-be respondent if an extension of time were granted and not the prejudice to the would-be appellant if the extension were not granted. |
| S3 Building Services Pte Ltd v Sky Technology Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] SGHC 87 | Singapore | Cited for the prejudice must be one that cannot be compensated by an appropriate order as to costs. |
| Ratnam v Cumarasamy | Privy Council | Yes | [1965] MLJ 228 | Malaysia | Cited for the Rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed. |
| United Overseas Bank Ltd v Ng Huat Foundations Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR 425 | Singapore | Cited for the tension between the need for procedural justice on the one hand and substantive justice on the other. |
| Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] SGCA 22 | Singapore | Cited for the rules of court practice and procedure exist to provide a convenient framework to facilitate dispute resolution and to serve the ultimate and overriding objective of justice. |
| Tan Sia Boo v Ong Chiang Kwong | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 131 | Singapore | Cited for the rules and procedure are designed to facilitate the fair disposal of legal proceedings and every litigant is expected to comply with the rules. |
| Chee Siok Chin v AG | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 735 | Singapore | Cited for the adherence to the law is the essence of the rule of law, which centres on objectivity as opposed to arbitrary subjective feelings. |
| Re Tan Khee Eng John | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 382 | Singapore | Cited for the there are many things which a lawyer or a litigant can do which do not necessarily hinder or delay court proceedings, but which nevertheless interfere with the effective administration of justice. |
| The Tokai Maru | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 105 | Singapore | Cited for the court adopts a more stringent approach with respect to applications to appeal out of time as compared to other applications to extend time. |
| Ladd v Marshall | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the conditions to justify the reception of fresh evidence or a new trial. |
| Ng Chye Huey v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR 106 | Singapore | Cited to show the criminal motion was ultimately heard on 18 October 2006 and the decision of the court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Order 3 r 4 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 57 r 4 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 57 r 17 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 57 rr 3(3) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 57 rr 3(4) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 32 r 5 Rules of Court | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extension of time
- Security deposit
- Waiver
- Defamation
- Summary judgment
- Rules of Court
- Delay
- Prejudice
- Bias
- Medical certificate
15.2 Keywords
- Extension of time
- Security deposit
- Defamation
- Singapore
- Appeal
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Defamation
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals