Attorney-General v Tee Kok Boon: Vexatious Litigant Restraint Order
The Attorney-General applied to the High Court of Singapore on 28 December 2007 for an order under Section 74(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to restrain Tee Kok Boon from instituting legal proceedings without the High Court's leave, arguing that Tee had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious legal proceedings without reasonable grounds. The High Court granted the order, restricting Tee from initiating criminal proceedings related to his conviction without prior approval from the court.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Order granted to restrain Tee Kok Boon from instituting criminal legal proceedings related to his conviction without the High Court's leave.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Attorney-General sought a restraining order against Tee Kok Boon, a vexatious litigant, to prevent him from instituting further legal proceedings.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Applicant | Government Agency | Application Granted | Won | Hay Hung Chun of Attorney-General’s Chambers Walter Woon Cheong Ming of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tee Kok Boon | Respondent | Individual | Order Granted Against Respondent | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hay Hung Chun | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Walter Woon Cheong Ming | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gregory Vijayendran | Rajah & Tann |
| Melvin Lum | Rajah & Tann |
| Dawn Wee | Rajah & Tann |
4. Facts
- Tee was convicted of giving false evidence at the Small Claims Tribunal.
- Tee appealed his conviction to the High Court, which was dismissed.
- Tee filed multiple applications and revisions seeking to overturn his conviction.
- Tee sought a fiat from the Attorney-General to prosecute Tan Hock Hai, which was denied.
- Tee filed Criminal Motion No 10 of 2007, seeking to have his conviction quashed.
- Tee refused to accept the finality of the High Court's decision.
5. Formal Citations
- Attorney-General v Tee Kok Boon, OS 1069/2007, [2007] SGHC 226
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Tee secured a tenant for Mdm Heng's property. | |
| Mdm Heng purportedly signed a letter of undertaking. | |
| Mdm Heng lodged a police report alleging forgery. | |
| Small Claims Tribunal ruled against Mdm Heng. | |
| Tee made a police report about the disputed advertisement. | |
| High Court dismissed Tee's appeal and Criminal Motion No 8 of 2005. | |
| Tee lodged a complaint under s 133(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. | |
| Tee filed Criminal Motion No 5 of 2006. | |
| Tee filed Criminal Revision No 8 of 2006. | |
| Tee requested a fiat from the Attorney-General to prosecute Tan. | |
| Attorney-General's Chambers rejected Tee's request for a fiat. | |
| Criminal Revision No 8 of 2006 was dismissed. | |
| Police informed Tee that they would not investigate further. | |
| Tee filed Criminal Revision No 1 of 2007. | |
| Justice V K Rajah dismissed Criminal Revision No 1 of 2007. | |
| Tee attempted to file a notice of appeal against the dismissal of Criminal Revision No 1 of 2007. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed Tee's application for extension of time. | |
| Tee sought a fiat to prosecute Tan. | |
| Tee sought a fiat to prosecute Tan. | |
| Tee sought a fiat to prosecute Tan. | |
| Attorney-General's Chambers reminded Tee of previous rejections. | |
| Tee sought a fiat to prosecute Tan. | |
| Tee filed Criminal Motion No 10 of 2007. | |
| Attorney-General filed the originating summons. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Vexatious Litigation
- Outcome: The court found that Tee Kok Boon had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious legal proceedings without reasonable ground.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Abuse of process of court
- Habitual and persistent institution of legal proceedings without reasonable ground
- Interpretation of s 74(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Outcome: The court held that s 74(1) applies to both civil and criminal proceedings, proceedings in the Court of Appeal, and interlocutory proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Application to criminal proceedings
- Application to Court of Appeal proceedings
- Application to interlocutory proceedings
- Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court
- Outcome: The court did not make a definitive ruling on this issue, as it was not necessary given the court's conclusion on s 74(1).
- Category: Jurisdictional
8. Remedies Sought
- Order restraining Tee Kok Boon from instituting legal proceedings without leave of the High Court
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Restraining Order under s 74(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unknown | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] SGCA 16 | Singapore | Cited for dismissing Tee's application for extension of time to apply for certain questions of law of public interest to be reserved for the decision of the Court of Appeal. |
| Tee Kok Boon v PP | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 398 | Singapore | Cited for dismissing Tee's Criminal Revision No 8 of 2006. |
| Bernard Boaler | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1914] 1 K.B. 21 | England | Cited for the narrow interpretation of 'legal proceedings' in the Vexatious Actions Act 1896, where the majority held that it did not apply to criminal proceedings. |
| Guilfoyle v Home Office | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1981] QB 309 | England | Cited for the point that 'legal proceedings' is a general phrase which may have to be limited by its context. |
| Hardial Singh Sekhon v Pegawai Buruh & Ors | High Court | Yes | [1999] 6 MLJ 257 | Malaysia | Cited for the view that clause 17 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 applies to criminal proceedings as well. |
| re Millane | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [1930] VLR 381 | Australia | Cited for the view that the Victorian legislation was not confined to civil proceedings. |
| Attorney-General v Van Reesema | Supreme Court of South Australia | Yes | [1986] 43 SASR 170 | Australia | Cited for the conclusion that criminal proceedings were not excluded from the South Australian legislation. |
| Attorney-General (NSW) v Bhattacharya | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2003] NSWSC 1150 | Australia | Cited for making orders against vexatious litigants in respect of civil or criminal proceedings. |
| Attorney-General (NSW) v Betts | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2004] NSWSC 901 | Australia | Cited for making orders against vexatious litigants in respect of civil or criminal proceedings. |
| Mortimer v Barrisove | British Columbia Supreme Court | Yes | [1977] 6 WWR 383 | Canada | Cited for the opinion that there is no jurisdiction under s. 84 to make an order preventing a person from using whatever procedures are open to him in criminal matters. |
| Foy v Foy (No. 2) | Ontario Court of Appeal | Yes | [1979] 26 OR (2d) 220 | Canada | Cited for the conclusion that 'legal proceedings' there did not apply to criminal proceedings. |
| British Columbia (Attorney General) v Lindsay | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] BCCA 165 | Canada | Cited as a Canadian case that appears to go against the submission for the narrow interpretation. |
| Jasbir Kaur v Mukhtiar Singh | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 349 | Singapore | Cited as an example of an individual instituting private prosecutions against another. |
| Cheng William v LooNgee Long Edmund | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 581 | Singapore | Cited as an example of an individual instituting private prosecutions against another. |
| Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia v Inglis | High Court | Yes | [1974] 3 ALR 19 | Australia | Cited for the view that there is no inherent power to make such a restraining order in respect of new legal proceedings and that such a power extends only to existing proceedings. |
| Williamsv Spautz | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1992] HCA 34 | Australia | Cited for the view that the inherent jurisdiction of Australian superior courts to stay (existing) proceedings extends to both civil and criminal proceedings. |
| Ebert v Venvil | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] Ch 484 | United Kingdom | Cited as one of the cases where the Grepe v Loam order had been extended in various ways. |
| Bhamjee v Forsdick & Others (No. 2) | Unknown | Yes | [2004] 1 WLR 88 | United Kingdom | Cited as one of the cases where the Grepe v Loam order had been extended in various ways. |
| Mahajan v Department of Constitutional Affairs | Unknown | Yes | [2004] EWCA Civ 946 | United Kingdom | Cited as one of the cases where the Grepe v Loam order had been extended in various ways. |
| Chua Choon Lim Robert v M N Swami | High Court | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 494 | Singapore | Cited for ruling that the High Court has the power under its inherent jurisdiction to make a restraining order in the context of civil proceedings. |
| Grepe v Loam | Unknown | Yes | [1887] 37 Ch D 168 | England | Cited as the locus classicus for the court’s inherent jurisdiction to make such a restraining order. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) | Singapore |
| Penal Code, Cap 224 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Vexatious litigant
- Restraining order
- Legal proceedings
- Criminal proceedings
- Inherent jurisdiction
- Abuse of process
- Fiat
- Conviction
- Small Claims Tribunal
- False evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Vexatious litigant
- Restraining order
- Abuse of process
- Criminal proceedings
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Vexatious litigants | 90 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 65 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 50 |
| Inherent Power of the Court | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Courts and Jurisdiction
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Statutory Interpretation