Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General: Reinstatement of Action for Wrongful Termination

In Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Linda Lai Swee Lin for reinstatement of her action against the Attorney-General for alleged wrongful termination of her employment contract. The court allowed the application, ordering the action to be reinstated and the Amended Statement of Claim filed on 8 February 2007 to stand as the plaintiff’s pleadings.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Action reinstated; Amended Statement of Claim allowed to stand.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for reinstatement of action for wrongful termination. The court ordered the action reinstated, allowing the Amended Statement of Claim to stand.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralDefendantGovernment AgencyAppeal AllowedLost
Mavis Chionh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lai Swee Lin LindaPlaintiffIndividualAction ReinstatedWon
Linda Lai Swee Lin of Independent Practitioner

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Mavis ChionhAttorney-General’s Chambers
Linda Lai Swee LinIndependent Practitioner

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff was terminated from her position at the Land Office of the Ministry of Law in 1998.
  2. Plaintiff filed Suit No. 995 of 2004 for alleged wrongful termination of her employment contract.
  3. The action was deemed discontinued under O 21 r 2(6) of ROC.
  4. Plaintiff applied for reinstatement of the action under O 21 r 2(8) of ROC.
  5. The plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim was filed after Suit 995 was deemed discontinued.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General, Suit 995/2004, [2009] SGHC 38

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff appointed as Senior Officer Grade III at the Land Office of the Ministry of Law.
Plaintiff's services terminated by the Senior Personnel Board F.
Plaintiff commenced judicial review proceedings in Originating Summons No. 96 of 2000.
Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s order in Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2000.
Plaintiff filed Suit No. 995 of 2004 for alleged wrongful termination.
Defendant applied to strike out parts of the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.
Assistant Registrar ordered certain paragraphs of the Statement of Claim to be struck out.
Plaintiff appealed against the Assistant Registrar’s decision.
Justice Tan Lee Meng dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.
Defendant served a statutory demand on the plaintiff.
Assistant Registrar Joyce Low dismissed Originating Summons Bankruptcy No 38 of 2005.
Plaintiff appealed against the order refusing stay of bankruptcy proceedings.
Justice Tan dismissed the appeal.
Plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2005.
Defendant filed Notice of Motion No. 81 of 2005 to set aside the striking out appeal.
Court of Appeal heard the plaintiff’s application in NM 81 and set aside the striking out appeal.
Plaintiff filed her Amended Statement of Claim in Suit 995.
Assistant Registrar Kenneth Yap ruled that the Amended Statement of Claim was filed after Suit 995 was deemed discontinued.
Plaintiff appealed against AR Yap’s decision.
Justice Tay Yong Kwang dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.
Plaintiff filed Originating Summons No. 1369 of 2007 seeking leave to appeal against Tay J’s decision.
Plaintiff filed her appeal in Civil Appeal No. 134 of 2007.
Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 134 of 2007 was deemed withdrawn.
Plaintiff filed the application for reinstatement of this action.
Reinstatement application listed for hearing.
Reinstatement application listed for hearing.
Defence was filed.
Plaintiff filed her Reply.
Action was ordered to be reinstated.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Reinstatement of Discontinued Action
    • Outcome: The court allowed the plaintiff's application and ordered reinstatement of the action.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Reinstatement of Action

9. Cause of Actions

  • Wrongful Termination of Employment Contract
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Moguntia-Est Epices SA v Sea-Hawk Freight Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR 429SingaporeCited for guidance on the manner in which the court is to exercise its discretion under O 21 r 2(8) of ROC.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court
O 21 r 2(6) of ROC
O 21 r 2(8) of ROC
O 57 r 4 of ROC
O 57 r 9(4) of ROC

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed )Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Reinstatement
  • Discontinuance
  • Wrongful Termination
  • Amended Statement of Claim
  • Trigger Date
  • Balance of Justice

15.2 Keywords

  • reinstatement
  • wrongful termination
  • employment
  • civil procedure
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice75
Employment Law60
Administrative Law40
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Employment Law
  • Reinstatement of Action