Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng: Harassment & False Statements under Protection from Harassment Act
The Attorney-General appealed against the High Court's decision that the Government cannot invoke Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act to prevent the publication of false statements. The Court of Appeal, in Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng, dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 15 applies only to natural persons and not to the Government. The court also addressed when it would be 'just and equitable' to grant such an order, finding that it was not in this case.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal addressed whether the Government can invoke the Protection from Harassment Act for false statements, ruling it cannot.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Appellant, Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed with costs. | Lost | Hui Choon Kuen, Lam Qian Yi, Debra Tan, Tan Zhongshan |
| TING CHOON MENG | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed. | Won | Choo Zheng Xi, Lee Hong Jet Jason |
| LEE KWAI HOU HOWARD | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed. | Won | Eugene Thuraisingam, Suang Wijaya, Gavin Tan |
| XU YUAN CHEN | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed. | Won | Eugene Thuraisingam, Suang Wijaya, Gavin Tan |
| LOH HONG PUEY ANDREW | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed. | Won | Eugene Thuraisingam, Suang Wijaya, Gavin Tan |
| CHOO ZHENG XI | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed. | Won | Eugene Thuraisingam, Suang Wijaya, Gavin Tan |
| LEE SONG KWANG | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed. | Won | Eugene Thuraisingam, Suang Wijaya, Gavin Tan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hui Choon Kuen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lam Qian Yi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Debra Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Zhongshan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Choo Zheng Xi | Peter Low LLC |
| Lee Hong Jet Jason | Peter Low LLC |
| Eugene Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Gavin Tan | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Dr. Ting, director of MobileStats, alleged MINDEF infringed its patent.
- MobileStats sued MINDEF for patent infringement.
- MINDEF's defense was conducted by Syntech, who counterclaimed for patent revocation.
- Suit was discontinued due to MobileStats' financial position.
- Dr. Ting alleged MINDEF intended to infringe the patent and waged a 'war of attrition'.
- MINDEF refuted the allegations as false and baseless.
- The Attorney-General applied for an order under s 15(2) of the Act.
5. Formal Citations
- Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal, Civil Appeals Nos 26 and 27 of 2016, [2017] SGCA 6
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Singapore Patent No 113446 registered. | |
| MobileStats alleges MINDEF infringed the Patent. | |
| MobileStats commenced Suit No 619 of 2011 against MINDEF. | |
| Judgment entered on the counterclaim. | |
| Dr Ting gave an interview to the first respondent in CA 27/2016. | |
| Video of interview and article uploaded on The Online Citizen. | |
| Appellant applied for an order under s 15(2) of the Act. | |
| District Judge granted the orders. | |
| Judge allowed the appeals against the District Judge’s decision. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Construction of Statute
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act applies only to natural persons and not to the Government.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Purposive approach
- Extraneous aids
- False Statements of Fact
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act applies only to natural persons and not to the Government.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the Allegations were false
- Order that the Allegations not be published without notification
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for order under s 15(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Appeals
- Protection from Harassment
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ting Choon Meng v Attorney-General and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1248 | Singapore | The High Court Judge held that the Government cannot invoke s 15 and that, in any event, it would not have been “just and equitable” to grant the orders sought in the circumstances of the case. |
| Attorney-General v Lee Kwai Hou Howard and others | District Court | Yes | [2015] SGDC 114 | Singapore | The District Judge granted the orders in terms, holding that ss 3 and 36 of the Government Proceedings Act provided the Government the “legal right to make an application” under s 15. |
| Government of the State of Sarawak & Anor v Chong Chieng Jen | Malaysian Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 MLJ 41 | Malaysia | The majority of the Malaysian Court of Appeal held that s 3 of the Malaysian Government Proceedings Act 1956 gives the government “the same right as a private individual to enforce a claim … by way of civil action”. |
| Town Investments Ltd v Department of the Environment | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1976] 1 WLR 1126 | England and Wales | Lawton LJ found that the Crown could take advantage of counter-inflation legislation to limit the rent that could be charged for sub-leases that it had purportedly entered into. |
| BFC v Comptroller of Income Tax | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 741 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the legislative intent to be discerned is that at or around the time the law is passed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 9A of the Interpretation Act mandates that the purposive approach be preferred over all other statutory interpretation approaches. |
| Chief Assessor and another v Van Ommeren Terminal (S) Pte Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 354 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the value of the long title in interpretation is limited. |
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 354 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the purposive approach has been consistently regarded as an approach which is “paramount”, taking precedence over any other common law principle of or approach to statutory interpretation. |
| Donald McArthy Trading Pte Ltd v Pankaj s/o Dhirajlal (trading as TopBottom Impex) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR 321 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court should give effect to the legislative purpose when interpreting an Act of Parliament. |
| Mills v Meeking | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1990] 91 ALR 16 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the application of the purposive approach, does not allow the court to construe the provision in a manner that would do violence to the express wording. |
| Madras Electric Supply Corporation Ld v Boarland (Inspector of Taxes) | House of Lords | Yes | [1955] AC 667 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that Parliament may even use the same word to mean different things. |
| Evans v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | [2003] FCAFC 276 | Australia | Cited for the principle that “[u]nder the umbrella of the general object is a multitude of objects of specific provisions” and to that extent, the general object may at times cast little, if any, light on the meaning of specific provisions. |
| Planmarine AG v Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 669 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no requirement for any ambiguity or absurdity to be found before recourse may be had to extraneous materials. |
| R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex parte Spath Holme Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [2001] 2 AC 349 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that statements made in Parliament in particular, must be “clear and unequivocal” to be of any real use. |
| R v Warner | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 2 AC 256 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that statements made in Parliament in particular, must be “clear and unequivocal” to be of any real use. |
| Pepper v Hart | House of Lords | Yes | [1993] AC 593 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the statement in question must “disclose the mischief aimed at [by the enactment] or the legislative intention lying behind the ambiguous or obscure words”. |
| Melluish (Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No 3) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 4 All ER 453 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the statement should be “directed to the very point in question in the litigation” because to do otherwise would “involve the interpretation of the ministerial statement in question”. |
| Chee Soon Juan and another v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 940 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that whether speech may be limited entails a delicate balancing exercise between the nature of the individual’s right to speak and the competing interest in limiting that speech. |
| Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the use of the words “in the interest of” indicates a wider legislative remit than if the power to circumscribe the rights conferred by Art 14 were confined to “the maintenance of public order”. |
| Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspaper Ltd and others | House of Lords | Yes | [1993] AC 534 | United Kingdom | Cited to be distinguished because the observations made by the House of Lords there relating to the restriction of the criticism of public bodies having an inhibiting effect on the right to free speech were made in the context of considering the legitimacy of a threat of a civil action for defamation. |
| Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others | House of Lords | Yes | [2001] 2 AC 127 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that there is no human right to disseminate information that is not true. |
| Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 52 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that false speech, which has been proven as a matter of fact to be false in a court of law, can contribute little to the marketplace of ideas or to advances in knowledge for the benefit of society as a whole. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Internet “is dramatically shortening the globe’s communicative synapses”, expanding “the potential reach and impact of any individual idea or expression” and though empowering, “also portends abuse”. |
| Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1981] AC 251 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the source to which Parliament must have intended the citizen to refer is the language of the Act itself. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 109 r 2(7) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 109 r 4 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) s 15 | Singapore |
| Government Proceedings Act (Cap 121, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 3 and 36 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 14 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 2 | Singapore |
| Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 (Act No 17 of 2015) s 5 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Protection from Harassment Act
- False statement of fact
- Government Proceedings Act
- Purposive approach
- War of attrition
- Patent infringement
- MobileStats
- MINDEF
- The Online Citizen
15.2 Keywords
- harassment
- false statements
- statutory interpretation
- protection from harassment act
- government
- civil procedure
16. Subjects
- Harassment
- Statutory Interpretation
- Torts
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Tort
- Harassment
- Statutory Interpretation