Attorney-General v Tham Yim Siong: Vexatious Litigant Restraint Order
In Attorney-General v Tham Yim Siong, the High Court of Singapore, on 30 June 2017 and 30 October 2017, granted the Attorney-General's application for an order to restrain Tham Yim Siong, Tham Wah Pun, and Ho Mee Foon from instituting or continuing legal proceedings in any court without the High Court's leave, due to their habitual and persistent institution of vexatious legal proceedings. The court considered novel issues concerning the scope of section 74(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, including whether failed attempts to file proceedings constitute the institution of proceedings and whether an order can be granted against an absent litigant.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Order granted to restrain the defendants from instituting or continuing proceedings in any court without the leave of the High Court.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Attorney-General sought a restraint order against the defendants as vexatious litigants. The High Court granted the order, preventing them from instituting legal proceedings without leave.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Plaintiff | Government Agency | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Sivakumar Ramasamy of Attorney-General’s Chambers Elaine Liew Ling Wei of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tham Yim Siong (Tan Yanchang) | Defendant | Individual | Order to restrain instituting proceedings without leave | Lost | |
| Tham Wah Pun | Defendant | Individual | Order to restrain instituting proceedings without leave | Lost | |
| Ho Mee Foon | Defendant | Individual | Order to restrain instituting proceedings without leave | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kannan Ramesh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sivakumar Ramasamy | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Elaine Liew Ling Wei | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Attorney-General applied for orders to restrain the defendants from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave.
- The defendants filed a bankruptcy application against 21 defendants, including nine Cabinet Ministers.
- The defendants' bankruptcy application was struck out as frivolous and an abuse of process.
- The defendants sent emails to the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice alleging misconduct.
- The first defendant attempted to file a summary judgment application, which was rejected.
- The first defendant attempted to file an application for leave for an investigation into misconduct, which was rejected.
- The defendants attempted to file an application to renew the original bankruptcy application, which was rejected.
5. Formal Citations
- Attorney-General v Tham Yim Siong and others, Originating Summons No 334 of 2017, [2017] SGHC 267
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendants filed bankruptcy application HC/B 1051/2016 against 21 defendants. | |
| 9 Ministers and two other defendants in OS 1051 applied to strike out OS 1051. | |
| Woo J heard the striking-out applications. | |
| Woo J struck out OS 1051 against the remaining defendants. | |
| Supreme Court sent a letter stating that OS 1051 had been struck out and dismissed in its entirety. | |
| Defendants sent an email to the Registrar of the Supreme Court insisting that Woo J’s orders to strike out OS 1051 be set aside. | |
| Supreme Court responded to the 1 June 2016 email by reiterating that OS 1051 had been struck out and dismissed in its entirety. | |
| Defendants wrote to the Chief Justice, alleging that Woo J’s orders in OS 1051 “are strong evidence of his inability to perform the functions of his office”. | |
| First defendant purported to serve three “affidavits” by email on various public agencies, organisations, and several Cabinet Ministers. | |
| First defendant purported to serve three “affidavits” by email on various public agencies, organisations, and several Cabinet Ministers. | |
| First defendant purported to serve three “affidavits” by email on various public agencies, organisations, and several Cabinet Ministers. | |
| First defendant attempted to file a “summary judgment” application in the State Courts. | |
| State Courts rejected the Summary Judgment Application. | |
| First defendant purported to serve, by email, a further “affidavit” on several Cabinet Ministers. | |
| First defendant sent an “affidavit” to AGC which named herself as the plaintiff. | |
| First defendant sent an “affidavit” to AGC which named herself as the plaintiff. | |
| First defendant attempted to file an application in the Supreme Court for leave for an investigation to be made into a complaint of misconduct against the AG and the 12 LSOs. | |
| Supreme Court rejected the LPA Application. | |
| Defendants attempted to file an application to “renew” OS 1051. | |
| Supreme Court rejected the Renewal Application. | |
| First defendant purported to serve three documents on some 60 recipients by email. | |
| AGC wrote separately to the Supreme Court and the State Courts for clarifications regarding the Purported Renewed OS, the Summary Judgment Application, the LPA Application and the CLTPA Affidavit. | |
| Supreme Court informed the AGC that both the LPA Application and the Renewal Application had been rejected. | |
| State Courts informed the AGC that no application in relation to the CLTPA Affidavit had been filed in the State Courts. | |
| First defendant sent two letters to the AGC to request that prosecutions be initiated against, inter alia, the AG, the 12 LSOs, Woo J and the RSC. | |
| State Courts informed the AGC that it had rejected the Summary Judgment Application. | |
| AG filed OS 334. | |
| First pre-trial conference held for OS 334. | |
| Second pre-trial conference held for OS 334. | |
| Third pre-trial conference held for OS 334. | |
| Hearing for OS 334 held. | |
| Grounds of decision delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Vexatious Litigant
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants were vexatious litigants and granted an order restraining them from instituting or continuing legal proceedings without the leave of the High Court.
- Category: Substantive
- Scope of 'Instituted Legal Proceedings'
- Outcome: The court held that the phrase 'instituted legal proceedings' includes both successful and unsuccessful attempts to file proceedings.
- Category: Substantive
- Opportunity to be Heard
- Outcome: The court held that it is not necessary for a litigant to attend the hearing to have been given 'an opportunity of being heard' under s 74(1).
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Restraint Order
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'habitually and persistently' and 'vexatious' in the context of section 74(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| Garrett & Anor v Mildara Blass Ltd & Ors | Supreme Court of South Australia | Yes | [2009] SASC 19 | South Australia | Cited for the proposition that 'instituting proceedings' encompasses the lodging of documents for the purpose of filing proceedings, even where such documents were rejected by the court. The court in the present case ultimately agreed with the principle but distinguished the facts. |
| Attorney-General v Tee Kok Boon | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR 412 | Singapore | Cited for similarities between section 74(1) of the SCJA and section 51 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (UK). |
| Ebert v Venvil and Another | Chancery Division | Yes | [2000] Ch 484 | England and Wales | Cited to show that the provisions derive from s 1 of the Vexatious Actions Act 1896 (c 51) (UK). |
| In re Bernard Boaler | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1914] 1 KB 21 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of 'institute' in the context of legal proceedings. |
| In re Vernazza | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1960] 1 QB 197 | England and Wales | Cited for the meaning of the phrase 'instituted legal proceedings' in s 51 of the 1925 Act. |
| Jones v Skyring | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1992) 109 ALR 303 | Australia | Cited for the interpretation of 'issued' and 'institute' in the context of legal proceedings. |
| Attorney-General v Foden | English High Court | Yes | [2005] EWHC 1281 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that it is not necessary for a litigant to attend the hearing to have been given 'an opportunity of being heard' under s 74(1). |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SGCA 50 | Singapore | Cited for the rule of statutory construction that Parliament shuns tautology. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 7 r 3(1) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 41 r 1(4) |
| Rules of Court O 92 r 3 |
| Rules of Court O 28 r 4(1) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 74(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 82A(5) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Vexatious litigant
- Restraint order
- Instituted legal proceedings
- Opportunity to be heard
- Abuse of process
- Bankruptcy application
- Striking out
- Summary judgment
- Legal Profession Act
- Rules of Court
15.2 Keywords
- Vexatious litigant
- Restraint order
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Attorney-General
- Legal proceedings
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Vexatious litigants | 95 |
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Bankruptcy | 60 |
| Judicial Review | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Criminal Procedure | 20 |
| Criminal Revision | 10 |
| Asset Recovery | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Vexatious Litigants
- Courts and Jurisdiction