Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General: Res Judicata & Wrongful Termination

In Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Linda Lai Swee Lin’s application against the Attorney-General. The application sought to appeal an earlier decision and obtain discovery of documents related to her termination from the Land Office of the Ministry of Law. The court, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, found that the matters raised were res judicata, having been previously decided by the Court of Appeal and the High Court. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the originating summons at first instance. The application was dismissed in its entirety.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Summons dismissed in its entirety.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Linda Lai Swee Lin's application against the Attorney-General was dismissed due to res judicata and lack of jurisdiction. The court found no grounds to overturn previous decisions.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralRespondentGovernment AgencyApplication DismissedWon
Zheng Shaokai of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Germaine Boey of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ruth Yeo of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lai Swee Lin LindaApplicantIndividualApplication DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Zheng ShaokaiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Germaine BoeyAttorney-General’s Chambers
Ruth YeoAttorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

  1. Lai Swee Lin Linda was appointed as a Senior Officer Grade III at the Land Office on 28 November 1996.
  2. Her probationary period was extended, and her services were eventually terminated.
  3. She appealed to the Appeals Board and the Public Service Commission, but both appeals were unsuccessful.
  4. She filed Originating Summons No 96 of 2000 for leave to bring judicial review proceedings, which was denied.
  5. She commenced Suit No 995 of 2004 for damages arising from the alleged wrongful termination of her employment.
  6. The Attorney-General applied to strike out parts of her Statement of Claim, which was allowed.
  7. Her amended Statement of Claim was deemed discontinued, but later reinstated.
  8. Lai J dismissed S 995/2004 on the ground that her termination had been in accordance with the terms of her employment contract.
  9. Mdm Lai filed Summons No 5332 of 2011 for an order that the CA “reopen and rehear its earlier decisions” which was dismissed.
  10. Mdm Lai filed OS 1246/2013 on 10 December 2013, which was struck out by AR Lee.
  11. Mdm Lai filed SUM 5748/2014, the present application, on 14 November 2014.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 1246 of 2013 (Summons No 5748 of 2014), [2015] SGHC 268

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Lai Swee Lin Linda appointed as a Senior Officer Grade III at the Land Office.
End of the initial probationary period for Lai Swee Lin Linda.
Lai Swee Lin Linda informed that her confirmation would not be recommended.
Lai Swee Lin Linda officially informed that she would not be confirmed and her probation was extended.
Probation extended retrospectively for another year.
Lai Swee Lin Linda's services terminated by the Senior Personnel Board F.
Lai Swee Lin Linda appealed to the Appeals Board.
Lai Swee Lin Linda appealed to the Public Service Commission.
Lai Swee Lin Linda filed Originating Summons No 96 of 2000.
Lai Swee Lin Linda commenced Suit No 995 of 2004.
Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin allowed the application to strike out parts of Mdm Lai’s Statement of Claim in S 995/2004.
Tan Lee Meng J substantially affirmed AR Yeong’s decision.
Start of one-year period with no action in proceedings.
Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney-General’s application to set aside Mdm Lai’s appeal against Tan J’s decision.
End of one-year period with no action in proceedings.
Lai Swee Lin Linda filed her amended Statement of Claim in S 995/2004.
Assistant Registrar Kenneth Yap directed Mdm Lai’s amended Statement of Claim to be expunged.
Lai Swee Lin Linda filed an application to reinstate S 995/2004.
Attorney-General filed and served its Defence.
Pre-trial conference held for S 995/2004.
Trial began before Lai Siu Chiu J.
Trial before Lai Siu Chiu J.
Trial before Lai Siu Chiu J.
Lai Siu Chiu J dismissed S 995/2004.
Lai Swee Lin Linda filed Summons No 5332 of 2011.
Choo Han Teck J dismissed SUM 5332/2011.
Lai Swee Lin Linda filed Civil Appeal No 31 of 2012.
Hearing of CA 31/2012 vacated.
Lai Swee Lin Linda informed Assistant Registrar Shaun Leong that she would comply with directions.
Assistant Registrar Leong noted outstanding directions.
Civil Appeal No 31 of 2012 struck out.
Lai Swee Lin Linda filed OS 1246/2013.
Attorney-General filed SUM 2297/2014.
Case management conference for OS 1246/2013.
Boey Yi Ling Germaine’s 2nd Affidavit dated.
Attorney-General’s Skeletal Submissions in SUM 2297/2014 dated.
AR James Elisha Lee struck out OS 1246/2013 in its entirety.
Attorney-General filed Originating Summons No 1014 of 2014.
Lai Swee Lin Linda filed SUM 5748/2014.
Attorney-General’s Skeletal Submissions in SUM 5748/2014 dated.
Prayer 2 dismissed.
Prayer 1 dismissed.
The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Limited and another matter [2015] SGCA 50 delivered.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Res Judicata
    • Outcome: The court held that the issues raised were res judicata, having been previously decided by the Court of Appeal and the High Court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2006] 2 SLR(R) 565
      • [2009] 1 SLR(R) 875
  2. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
    • Outcome: The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the originating summons at first instance.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 3 SLR 258
      • [2014] 3 SLR 357
  3. Discovery of Documents
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for discovery of documents, finding that the issues for which discovery was sought were res judicata.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against decision to strike out originating summons
  2. Discovery of documents

9. Cause of Actions

  • Wrongful Termination
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Judicial Review

11. Industries

  • Government

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin LindaCourt of AppealYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 133SingaporeCited to show that the matters complained of involved private rights arising from the contract of employment and were not susceptible to judicial review.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 565SingaporeCited to show that insofar as Mdm Lai’s Statement of Claim pertained to judicial review, those matters had already been determined by the Court of Appeal in previous proceedings and were res judicata.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 38SingaporeCited regarding the reinstatement of S 995/2004.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 345SingaporeCited to show that Lai J dismissed S 995/2004 on the ground that Mdm Lai’s termination had been in accordance with the terms of her employment contract.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301High CourtYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 875SingaporeCited regarding the doctrine of res judicata.
MCST Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2011] 1 SLR 998SingaporeCited by Mdm Lai to argue that the CA had jurisdiction to hear OS 1246/2013 because the merits of Mdm Lai’s claim had not been determined in CA 69/2000, but the court found her reliance incorrect.
Re Naplon Zero Geraldo MarioCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 258SingaporeCited to reiterate that the CA is a creature of statute and can only be seized of jurisdiction that is conferred by statute.
Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 357SingaporeCited to show that none of the provisions in the SCJA conferred original jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal.
The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Limited and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2015] SGCA 50SingaporeCited as the latest judgment on the exception to the principle of res judicata as enunciated in Lee Tat 2009 and Lee Tat 2011.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court
O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)
O 21 r 2(6) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed)
O 24 r 1 of the Rules of Court
O 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court
O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court
O 56 r 1 of the Rules of Court
O 56 r 1(2) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore
s 29A(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 74 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Res Judicata
  • Originating Summons
  • Discovery
  • Wrongful Termination
  • Judicial Review
  • Unless Order
  • Probation
  • Senior Officer
  • Land Office
  • Public Service Commission

15.2 Keywords

  • res judicata
  • wrongful termination
  • jurisdiction
  • discovery
  • civil procedure
  • employment law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Res Judicata90
Civil Procedure80
Employment Law75
Administrative Law60
Civil Litigation50
Property Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Litigation
  • Employment Law
  • Res Judicata
  • Jurisdiction