Yan Jun v Attorney-General: Appeal Dismissed on False Imprisonment Claim

In Yan Jun v Attorney-General, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Yan Jun against the High Court's decision to strike out parts of his statement of claim in Suit No 257 of 2013. The claims arose from his arrest on 19 July 2009. The Appellant claimed damages for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, assault and battery, excessive use of force, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and defamation. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision to strike out most claims except for the false imprisonment claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Yan Jun's appeal against striking out parts of his claim was dismissed, except for the false imprisonment claim. The court addressed limitation and constitutional issues.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralRespondentGovernment AgencyWonWon
Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Low Tzeh Shyian Russell of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Poh Jia Yin Nicole Evangeline of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Yan JunAppellantIndividualAppeal Dismissed in PartPartial
Yan Jun of Independent Practitioner

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeNo
Quentin LohJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Khoo Boo JinAttorney-General’s Chambers
Low Tzeh Shyian RussellAttorney-General’s Chambers
Poh Jia Yin Nicole EvangelineAttorney-General’s Chambers
Yan JunIndependent Practitioner

4. Facts

  1. Appellant had an argument with his mother-in-law and called the police.
  2. Appellant's wife hit him repeatedly and violently.
  3. Police officers arrived and spoke to the wife, ignoring the Appellant.
  4. Appellant was arrested for breach of an Expedited Order.
  5. Appellant informed the Investigating Officer that his wife did not attend court on the return date of the Expedited Order.
  6. Appellant was released on bail after approximately 21 hours.
  7. Appellant claims the Expedited Order was not valid at the time of his arrest.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Yan Jun v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 142 of 2013, [2014] SGCA 60

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant arrested for breach of Expedited Order
Appellant released on bail
Expedited Order obtained against Appellant
Appellant went to Family Court
Appellant informed case referred to Attorney-General’s Chambers
Appellant informed no further action to be taken
Appellant sent email to Attorney-General’s Chambers
Attorney-General’s Chambers replied to Appellant
Appellant filed S 257/2013 against Attorney-General
Respondent applied to strike out Appellant’s statement of claim
Assistant Registrar struck out all claims except false imprisonment
Appellant filed appeal against Assistant Registrar’s decision
Appeal dismissed by Judge
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Limitation Period
    • Outcome: The court held that the three-year limitation period applied to claims for personal injuries, but not to the entire suit if other claims were present.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Applicability of three-year limitation period for personal injuries
      • Interpretation of 'breach of duty' under s 24A of the Limitation Act
    • Related Cases:
      • [1965] 1 QB 232
      • [1993] AC 498
      • [2008] 1 AC 844
  2. Malicious Prosecution
    • Outcome: The court held that the claim for malicious prosecution did not disclose a reasonable cause of action because the Appellant was not charged.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether a prosecution occurred
      • Whether there was reasonable and probable cause
      • Whether the prosecution was malicious
    • Related Cases:
      • [1996] 2 SLR(R) 858
      • [1947] AC 322
  3. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court held that the claim for abuse of process did not disclose a reasonable cause of action because judicial proceedings were never commenced against the Appellant.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether there was an abuse of the judicial process
      • Whether the Attorney-General acted in excess of his prosecutorial powers
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239
      • [2010] Ch 467
  4. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court held that the claim for defamation did not disclose a reasonable cause of action because the statements were made on an occasion of qualified privilege and there was no real and substantial tort.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether the statements were defamatory
      • Whether the statements referred to the Appellant
      • Whether the statements were published
      • Whether the statements were made on an occasion of qualified privilege
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] 4 SLR 331
      • [2005] QB 946
  5. Constitutional Rights
    • Outcome: The court held that Art 9(4) does not confer a right upon an arrested person to be brought before a Magistrate upon his arrest in every case.
    • Category: Constitutional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of Art 9(4) of the Constitution
      • Right to be brought before a Magistrate
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 3 SLR 750

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Wrongful Arrest
  • False Imprisonment
  • Assault and Battery
  • Excessive Use of Force
  • Malicious Prosecution
  • Abuse of Process
  • Defamation
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Constitutional Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Yan Jun v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 793SingaporeDecision from which this appeal arose.
Letang v CooperEnglish Court of AppealYes[1965] 1 QB 232England and WalesInterpreted the phrase “breach of duty” under s 2(1) of the 1954 UK Act.
Billings v ReedEnglish Court of AppealYes[1945] KB 11England and WalesCited for giving a wide construction to the phrase “breach of duty”.
Kruber v GrzesiakSupreme Court of VictoriaYes[1963] 2 VR 621VictoriaCited for giving a wide construction to the phrase “breach of duty”.
Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons LtdHouse of LordsYes[1963] AC 758England and WalesCase concerning latent damage and limitation periods.
Stubbings v WebbHouse of LordsYes[1993] AC 498England and WalesInterpreted the words “breach of duty” and held that the plaintiff’s claim based on assault did not fall within the meaning of “breach of duty”.
A v HoareHouse of LordsYes[2008] 1 AC 844England and WalesRevisited its decision in Stubbings and departed from it.
Ex Parte Campbell. In re CathcartEnglish Court of Appeal in ChanceryYesEx Parte Campbell. In re Cathcart (1870) LR 5 Ch 703England and WalesCited for the canon of statutory interpretation that where the legislature re-enacts a statute in words that have received interpretation by a superior court, it intends those words to bear the meaning which the court has given to them.
National Phonograph Co of Australia Ltd v MenckHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1908) 7 CLR 481AustraliaCited for the canon of statutory interpretation that where the provisions under consideration have been construed by a competent court in a foreign jurisdiction, the canon also applies.
Public Prosecutor v Low Kok HengSingapore High CourtYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 183SingaporeCited for the principle that any common law principle of interpretation, such as the plain meaning rule and the strict construction rule, must yield to the purposive interpretation approach stipulated by s 9A(1) of the Interpretation Act.
Bennett v Greenland Houchen & Co (A Firm)English Court of AppealYes[1998] PNLR 458England and WalesCited as authority for the interpretation of s 24A(2).
Howe v David Brown Tractors (Retail) LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1991] 4 All ER 30England and WalesCase regarding damages in respect of personal injury.
Walkin v South Manchester Health AuthorityEnglish Court of AppealYes[1995] 1 WLR 1543England and WalesCase regarding damages in respect of personal injury.
Oates v Harte Reade & CoEnglish High CourtYes[1999] PNLR 763England and WalesCase regarding damages in respect of personal injury.
Shade v The Compton PartnershipEnglish Court of AppealYes[2000] PNLR 218England and WalesCase regarding damages in respect of personal injury.
Warner v SampsonEnglish Court of AppealYes[1959] QB 297England and WalesCited for the principle that any amendments made to the writ would date back to the date the writ was originally filed.
Zainal bin Kuning and ors v Chan Sin Mian Michael and anorCourt of AppealYes[1996] 2 SLR(R) 858SingaporeCited for the requirements to establish a cause of action in malicious prosecution.
Amin v BannerjeePrivy CouncilYes[1947] AC 322United KingdomCited for the foundation of the action of malicious prosecution.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo PhyllisHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 239SingaporeCited for the concept of abuse of process.
Land Securities Plc & Ors v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm)English Court of AppealYes[2010] Ch 467England and WalesCited for the concept of abuse of process.
James Raj s/o Ariokasamy v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 750SingaporeCited for the need to balance an individual’s constitutional rights against other public interest considerations.
Jasbir Singh and another v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1994] 1 SLR(R) 782SingaporeCited for the right to counsel under Art 9(3) was not exercisable immediately, but, rather, only after a reasonable time.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian WeiCourt of AppealYes[2010] 4 SLR 331SingaporeCited for the privilege attaches to the occasion on which the defamatory statement is made and not the statement itself.
Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co IncEnglish Court of AppealYes[2005] QB 946England and WalesCited for the principle that there was no “real and substantial tort” allegedly committed within the jurisdiction and that it would be an abuse of process for the plaintiff to proceed with his claim.
Phillip Wallis and GHP Securities Limited v Justin MeredithEnglish High CourtYes[2011] EWHC 75 (QB)England and WalesFollowed the decision of Jameel.
Tamiz v Google IncEnglish Court of AppealYes[2013] 1 WLR 2151England and WalesFollowed the decision of Jameel.
Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd and another and another suitSingapore High CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 453SingaporeApplied Jameel in the context of a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court.
Ng Koo Kay Benedict and another v Zim Integrated Shipping Services LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2010] 2 SLR 860SingaporeReferred to Jameel.
Kesavan Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd v S P Powerassets LimitedSingapore District CourtYes[2011] SGDC 179SingaporeDirect application of Jameel.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 18 r 19Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 6Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 24ASingapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(1)Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed) Art 9(4)Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 9(3)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 397(1)Singapore
Defamation Act (Cap 75, 2014 Rev Ed) ss 4Singapore
Defamation Act (Cap 75, 2014 Rev Ed) ss 5Singapore
Defamation Act (Cap 75, 2014 Rev Ed) ss 6Singapore
Rules of Court O 78 r 3Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Expedited Order
  • Personal Protection Order
  • Breach of Duty
  • False Imprisonment
  • Malicious Prosecution
  • Abuse of Process
  • Defamation
  • Limitation Period
  • Wrongful Arrest

15.2 Keywords

  • wrongful arrest
  • false imprisonment
  • malicious prosecution
  • abuse of process
  • defamation
  • limitation act
  • constitutional rights

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Constitutional Law70
Civil Litigation60
False Imprisonment60
Wrongful arrest50
Civil Rights50
Criminal Law40
Criminal Procedure40
Malicious Prosecution40
Defamation40
Negligence30
Personal Injury30
Abuse of Process30

16. Subjects

  • Tort
  • Constitutional Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Limitation of Actions