Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General: Vexatious Litigant Designation

In Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General, the Court of Appeal of Singapore, on 5 September 2016, dismissed Ms. Lai Swee Lin Linda's appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to designate her a vexatious litigant under Section 74 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. The Attorney-General had applied to restrain Ms. Lai from initiating further legal proceedings related to her employment at the Land Office of the Ministry of Law. The court found that Ms. Lai had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious legal proceedings without reasonable grounds, justifying the restriction on her access to the courts regarding matters connected to her employment termination.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal designated Ms. Lai Swee Lin Linda a vexatious litigant, restricting her from initiating further legal proceedings related to her past employment.

1.7 Decision Date

4 September 2016

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Attorney-General	Respondent	Government Agency	Application Granted	Won	Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Zheng Shaokai of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ruth Yeo of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lai Swee Lin Linda	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Judith Prakash	Judge of Appeal	Yes
Belinda Ang Saw Ean	Judge	No
Quentin Loh	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Khoo Boo Jin	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Zheng Shaokai	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ruth Yeo	Attorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

Ms. Lai was employed by the Land Office as a Senior Officer Grade III.
Ms. Lai's employment was terminated by the Senior Personnel Board.
Ms. Lai appealed to the Appeals Board and the Public Service Commission, but was unsuccessful.
Ms. Lai initiated multiple legal proceedings against the Attorney-General and other government entities.
The Attorney-General applied to have Ms. Lai designated a vexatious litigant.
The High Court granted the Attorney-General's application.
Ms. Lai appealed the High Court's decision.

5. Formal Citations

Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 205 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 54

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1996-11-28	Ms. Lai employed by the Land Office as a Senior Officer Grade III.
1997-11-27	Scheduled end of Ms. Lai's one-year probationary period.
1998-06-01	Ms. Lai informed that her confirmation would not be recommended.
1998-08-19	Ms. Lai officially informed of non-confirmation and retrospective extension of probation.
1998-12-01	Ms. Lai's employment terminated by the Senior Personnel Board.
1999-01-23	Ms. Lai appealed to the Appeals Board.
1999-06-10	Ms. Lai appealed to the Public Service Commission.
2000-01-20	Ms. Lai filed Originating Summons No 96 of 2000.
2001-01-01	Decision in Civil Appeal No 69 of 2000 reversed Rubin J’s decision.
2004-12-17	Ms. Lai filed Suit No 995 of 2004.
2005-04-05	Tan Lee Meng J dismissed Ms. Lai's appeal in Registrar’s Appeal No 66 of 2005.
2005-01-01	Ms. Lai applied in Originating Summons in Bankruptcy No 38 of 2005 to set aside or stay the statutory demand.
2005-01-01	Ms. Lai filed a consolidated appeal, Civil Appeal No 87 of 2005.
2005-10-24	Court of Appeal allowed the AG’s application in Notice of Motion No 81 of 2005.
2007-02-08	Ms. Lai filed an amended statement of claim for Suit 995/2004.
2007-03-01	Assistant Registrar ordered the amended statement of claim for Suit 995/2004 to be expunged.
2007-04-25	Decision upheld in Registrar’s Appeal No 61 of 2007.
2007-11-06	Ms. Lai filed Civil Appeal No 134 of 2007 against the decision in RA 61/2007.
2008-06-25	Ms. Lai applied to reinstate Suit 995/2004.
2009-05-19	The AG’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
2009-06-01	The AG filed its defence.
2010-08-01	Trial of Suit 995/2004 took place.
2010-11-24	Trial Judge dismissed Ms. Lai’s claim.
2011-11-23	Ms. Lai filed Summons No 5332 of 2011.
2012-03-06	Choo Han Teck J dismissed SUM 5332/2011.
2012-04-02	Ms. Lai filed Civil Appeal No 31 of 2012.
2012-12-12	CA 31/2012 was struck out.
2013-01-01	Ms. Lai filed Originating Summons No 1246 of 2013.
2014-10-31	Assistant Registrar James Elisha Lee granted the striking-out application.
2014-11-14	Ms. Lai filed Summons No 5748 of 2014.
2015-02-26	Woo J dismissed the prayer for discovery.
2015-07-14	Woo J dismissed the “appeal and set aside” prayer.
2015-10-19	Woo Bih Li J granted the Present Application.
2016-05-09	Judgment reserved.
2016-09-05	Appeal dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

Vexatious Litigation
- Outcome: The court held that Ms. Lai had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious legal proceedings without reasonable ground, justifying the restriction on her access to the courts regarding matters connected to her employment termination.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Habitual and persistent institution of legal proceedings
  - Institution of legal proceedings without reasonable ground
  - Abuse of the process of the court
Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court found that the issues Ms. Lai sought to re-litigate had already been conclusively decided and that the Arnold exception to res judicata did not apply.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Re-litigation of previously decided issues
  - Application of the Arnold exception

8. Remedies Sought

Quashing Orders
Mandatory Order for Reinstatement
Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Judicial Review
Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Litigation
Appeals

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Attorney-General v Lai Swee Lin Linda	High Court	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 1447	Singapore	The judgment under appeal, where the High Court designated Ms. Lai as a vexatious litigant.
Attorney-General v Tee Kok Boon	High Court	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 412	Singapore	Cited for the principles governing applications under Section 74(1) of the SCJA and the interpretation of 'vexatious legal proceedings'.
Attorney-General v Mah Kiat Seng	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 788	Singapore	Cited for the principles governing applications under Section 74(1) of the SCJA and the interpretation of 'vexatious legal proceedings'.
Attorney-General v Barker	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 1 FLR 759	England	Cited for the archetypal characteristics of a vexatious litigant.
Bhamjee v Forsdick and others	English High Court	Yes	[2004] 1 WLR 88	England	Discussed the inherent jurisdiction of the court to make a restraining order against a vexatious litigant on its own accord.
Linda Lai Swee Lin v Public Service Commission	High Court	Yes	[2000] SGHC 162	Singapore	First instance decision in Originating Summons No 96 of 2000, where leave was granted to seek quashing orders.
Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 133	Singapore	Reversed the High Court's decision and set aside the order granting Ms. Lai leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2005] SGHC 182	Singapore	Decision on Originating Summons in Bankruptcy No 38 of 2005, where Ms. Lai's application to set aside or stay the statutory demand was dismissed.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 565	Singapore	Court of Appeal allowed the AG’s application in Notice of Motion No 81 of 2005 and set aside part of CA 87/2005.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 794	Singapore	Decision in Registrar’s Appeal No 61 of 2007, where Ms. Lai was directed to file a separate application to reinstate Suit 995/2004.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2009] SGHC 38	Singapore	Belinda Ang Saw Ean J granted Ms. Lai's application to reinstate Suit 995/2004.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 345	Singapore	Trial Judge dismissed Ms. Lai’s claim in Suit 995/2004.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2012] SGHC 47	Singapore	Choo Han Teck J dismissed SUM 5332/2011.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 268	Singapore	Woo J dismissed both the prayer for AR Lee’s striking-out order to be “appealed against and … set aside” and the prayer for discovery of the Documents.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 875	Singapore	Discussed the Arnold exception to the principle of res judicata.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 1 SLR 998	Singapore	Clarified the Arnold exception to the principle of res judicata.
The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd (nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd and others, other parties) and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 1104	Singapore	Rejected the approach adopted in the two Lee Tat cases and narrowed the Arnold exception.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Vexatious litigant
Supreme Court of Judicature Act
Section 74
Habitually and persistently
Reasonable ground
Abuse of process
Res judicata
Arnold exception
Public Service Commission
Land Office
Senior Personnel Board
Appeals Board

15.2 Keywords

Vexatious litigant
Civil procedure
Singapore
Employment law
Judicial review
Res judicata

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Vexatious litigants	95
Civil Practice	70
Jurisdiction	60
Civil Procedure	50
Inherent Power of the Court	40
Administrative Law	30
Judicial Review	20

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Courts
Vexatious Litigants