Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing: Defamation, Service Out of Jurisdiction & Rules of Court

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew sued Review Publishing Co Ltd and Hugo Restall in the High Court of Singapore for defamation related to an article published in the Far Eastern Economic Review. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the claims were not confined to Singapore and that service of the writs was not properly effected. Sundaresh Menon JC dismissed the appeals, finding that the claims were appropriately limited to Singapore and that service was properly executed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment reserved

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore PM Lee sued Review Publishing for defamation. The court addressed service out of jurisdiction and the scope of claims under the Rules of Court.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lee Hsien LoongPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeals dismissedLost
Hugo RestallDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeals dismissedLost
Review Publishing Co LtdDefendant, AppellantCorporationAppeals dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jaikanth ShankarDrew & Napier LLC
Davinder SinghDrew & Napier LLC
Wilson WongDrew & Napier LLC
Peter Cuthbert LowPeter Low Partnership

4. Facts

  1. The respondents, Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew, are the Prime Minister and Minister Mentor of Singapore, respectively.
  2. The first appellant, Review Publishing Co Ltd, publishes the Far Eastern Economic Review.
  3. The second appellant, Hugo Restall, is the editor of the Review and the author of the disputed article.
  4. The disputed article, titled “Singapore’s ‘Martyr’, Chee Soon Juan”, was published in the July/August 2006 issue of the Review and on its website.
  5. The respondents commenced separate actions against the appellants for defamation.
  6. The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the claims were not confined to Singapore and that service of the writs was not properly effected.
  7. The respondents asserted that their claims fell within O 11 rr 1(b), 1(f) and 1(p) of the Rules of Court.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd, Suit 539/2006, 540/2006, RA 328/2006, 329/2006, [2007] SGHC 24

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Article entitled “Singapore’s ‘Martyr’, Chee Soon Juan” published in the July/August 2006 issue of the Review
Leave to serve writs out of jurisdiction granted to the respondents.
Service effected by a process server on Mr Restall and at the registered address of the Review.
The Review and Mr Restall entered appearance for the purpose of disputing the jurisdiction of the court.
Hearing of the appellants’ challenge to jurisdiction in the court below.
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Service out of jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court held that service was properly effected and the claims were appropriately limited to Singapore.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Abuse of process
      • Validity of service
  2. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court did not rule on whether the article was defamatory, but considered whether the claims were appropriately limited to Singapore.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Defamatory meaning
      • Publication
  3. Abuse of process
    • Outcome: The court held that the claims were appropriately limited to Singapore and there was no abuse of process.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Claims exceeding jurisdiction

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Injunctive relief
  3. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Publishing

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Pacific Assets Management Ltd v Chen Lip KeongHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR 658SingaporeCited regarding the burden of proof in applications to set aside service of process out of jurisdiction.
Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH v Hugo Boss AGHigh CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR 469SingaporeCited regarding the burden of proof in applications to set aside service of process out of jurisdiction.
Siskina (Cargo Owners) v Distos SAUnknownYes[1979] AC 210England and WalesCited for the principle that service out of jurisdiction is an exorbitant jurisdiction.
The HagettUnknownYes[1908] P 189England and WalesCited in Siskina (Cargo Owners) v Distos SA regarding service out of jurisdiction.
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty LtdHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1990) 171 CLR 538AustraliaCited regarding the burden of proof in applications to set aside service out of jurisdiction.
Eyre v Nationwide News Pty LtdSupreme Court of New ZealandYes[1967] NZLR 851New ZealandCited regarding the principle that claims should be limited to the home jurisdiction in defamation cases.
Diamond v SuttonCourt of ExchequerYes(1866) LR 1 Ex 130England and WalesCited regarding the principle that litigants should not unjustly draw foreign defendants into a jurisdiction.
Societe Generale de Paris v Dreyfus BrothersUnknownYes(1885) 29 Ch D 239England and WalesCited regarding the principle that courts should be careful before allowing a writ to be served out of the jurisdiction.
Chadha v Dow Jones & Co IncEnglish Court of AppealYes[1999] EMLR 724England and WalesCited regarding the principle that the scale of publication within the jurisdiction is important when considering service out of jurisdiction.
Johnson v Taylor Brothers & Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[1920] AC 144England and WalesCited regarding the principle that regard ought to be had to the real breach in respect of which the action is brought.
Kroch v RossellUnknownYes[1937] 1 All ER 725England and WalesCited regarding the principle that the reality of the question ought to be looked at.
Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co IncUnknownYes[2005] QB 946England and WalesCited regarding the principle that the court is concerned to ensure that judicial and court resources are appropriately and proportionately used.
Berezovsky v MichaelsHouse of LordsYes[2000] 1 WLR 1004England and WalesCited regarding the principle that each publication gives rise to a separate tort in defamation cases.
Aaron v Cheong Yip SengCourt of AppealYes[1996] 2 SLR 623SingaporeCited regarding the need to demonstrate that the impugned statement is defamatory.
Microsoft Corp v SM Summit Holdings LtdCourt of AppealYes[1999] 4 SLR 529SingaporeCited regarding the need to demonstrate that the impugned statement is defamatory.
Murugason v The Straits Times PressHigh CourtYes[1984-1985] SLR 334SingaporeCited regarding the need to particularise the facts and matters said to support the innuendo meaning.
Longham v Odhams PressUnknownYes[1963] 1 QB 299England and WalesCited regarding the need to particularise the facts and matters said to support the innuendo meaning.
Fullam v Newcastle Chronicle and JournalUnknownYes[1997] 1 WLR 651England and WalesCited regarding the need to particularise the facts and matters said to support the innuendo meaning.
Dow Jones & Co Inc v GutnickHigh Court of AustraliaYes(2002) 194 ALR 433AustraliaCited regarding the principle that harm to reputation is done when a defamatory publication is comprehended by the reader.
Al Amoudi v BrisardUnknownYes[2006] 3 All ER 294England and WalesCited regarding the principle that there is no presumption of law that publication on the internet takes place to a substantial and unquantifiable number of people.
Thomas v The Duchess Dowager of HamiltonEnglish Court of AppealYes(1886) 17 QBD 592England and WalesCited regarding the principle that it was proper to have reference to the affidavit filed in support of the leave application.
Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v Chemische Fabrik vormals SandozUnknownYes(1903) 88 LT 490England and WalesCited regarding the principle that the court is bound to some extent to look to the affidavits, and to see, what is the real point in issue between the parties.
Transniko v Communications TechnologyHigh CourtYes[1996] 1 SLR 580SingaporeCited regarding the duty to make full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications.
PT Garuda Indonesia v Birgen AirHigh CourtYes[2001] SGHC 262SingaporeCited regarding the duty to make full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications.
Trafalgar Tours Ltd v HenryUnknownYes[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 298England and WalesCited regarding the duty to make full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications.
Lazard Brothers & Co v Midland Bank LtdHouse of LordsYes[1933] AC 289England and WalesCited regarding the duty to make full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications.
Asian Corporate Services (SEA) v Eastwest Management (Singapore Branch)Court of AppealYes[2006] 1 SLR 901SingaporeCited regarding the principles of material non-disclosure in ex parte applications.
Tay Long Kee Impex Pte Ltd v Tan Beng HuwahHigh CourtYes[2000] 2 SLR 750SingaporeCited regarding the principles of material non-disclosure in ex parte applications.
The King v The General Commissioners for the Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the District of Kensington, ex parte Princess Edmond de PolignacUnknownYes[1917] 1 KB 486England and WalesCited regarding the principles of material non-disclosure in ex parte applications.
Brink’s Mat Ltd v ElcombeUnknownYes[1988] 1 WLR 1350England and WalesCited regarding the principles of material non-disclosure in ex parte applications.
Network Telecom (Europe) Ltd v Telephone Systems International IncUnknownYes[2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 418England and WalesCited regarding the continuing obligation on a plaintiff to inform the court of any new circumstances that occurred between the time leave was granted and the process was served.
The FagernesUnknownYes[1927] P 311England and WalesCited regarding the principle that the courts would not in matters of this nature depart from the views of the executive branch of government.
Aksionairnoye Obschestvo AM Luther v Sagor and CoUnknownYes[1921] 3 KB 532England and WalesCited regarding the principle that the courts would not in matters of this nature depart from the views of the executive branch of government.
Mighell v The Sultan of JohoreUnknownYes[1894] 1 QB 149England and WalesCited regarding the principle that once there is the authoritative certificate of the Queen through her minister of state as to the status of another sovereign, that in the Court of this country is decisive.
Civil Aeronautics Administration v Singapore Airlines LimitedCourt of AppealYes[2004] 1 SLR 570SingaporeCited regarding the principle that the courts would not in matters of this nature depart from the views of the executive branch of government.
Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler, Ltd (No 2)UnknownYes[1966] 2 All ER 536England and WalesCited regarding the principle that the courts would not in matters of this nature depart from the views of the executive branch of government.
R (on an application of Gentle and another) v Prime MinisterEnglish Court of AppealYes[2006] All ER (D) 147 (Dec)England and WalesCited regarding the principle that issues relating to the conduct of international relations and military operations outside the United Kingdom are not justiciable.
R (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AffairsUnknownYes[2002] EWCA Civ 1598England and WalesCited regarding the principle that issues relating to the conduct of international relations and military operations outside the United Kingdom are not justiciable.
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil ServiceHouse of LordsYes[1985] 1 AC 374England and WalesCited regarding the principle that the controlling factor in determining whether the exercise of prerogative power is subject to judicial review is not its source but its subject matter.
R (CND) v Prime MinisterUnknownYes[2002] EWHC 277 (admin)England and WalesCited regarding the principle that the court should not declare the meaning of an international instrument that operates purely on the plane of international law.
R v Foreign Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex p EverettUnknownYes[1989] 1 QB 811England and WalesCited regarding the principle that an executive decision to issue a passport was subject to judicial review.
R (Marchiori) v The Environment AgencyUnknownYes[2002] EuLR 225England and WalesCited regarding the principle that the law of England will not contemplate what may be called a merits review of any honest decision of government upon matters of national defence policy.
Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha LtdFederal Court of AustraliaYes[2006] FCAFC 116AustraliaCited regarding the principle that the correct approach is not to assume a highly rigid and categorical approach to deciding which cases are not justiciable.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
Order 11 r 1 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
Order 11 r 4(1), O 11 r 4(2) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
O 12 r 7 of the Rules
O 11 rr 1(b), 1(f) and 1(p) of the Rules
O 78 r 3(1) of the Rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defamation
  • Service out of jurisdiction
  • Abuse of process
  • Rules of Court
  • Statement of claim
  • Affidavit
  • Undertaking
  • Treaty
  • Hong Kong
  • Jurisdiction

15.2 Keywords

  • Defamation
  • Service out of jurisdiction
  • Rules of Court
  • Singapore
  • Hong Kong

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Defamation Law95
Service out of jurisdiction90
Civil Procedure80
Civil Practice75
Abuse of Process70
Litigation50
International Law40
Judgments and Orders30
Appellate Practice25
Constitutional Law20
Contract Law10
Asset Recovery10
Property Law10
Costs10
Administrative Law10
Contempt of Court5

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Defamation
  • Jurisdiction
  • Service of Process