Cheong Wei Chang v. Lee Hsien Loong: Striking Out Vexatious Proceedings
In Cheong Wei Chang v Lee Hsien Loong, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of a vexatious litigant. Mr. Cheong filed a claim against Mr. Lee, alleging regulations imposed on his activities. The Attorney-General applied to strike out the claim and restrain Mr. Cheong from further similar actions. The court struck out the claim as an abuse of process and restrained Mr. Cheong from filing further similar actions without leave of court.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Action struck out; litigant restrained from filing further similar actions without leave of court.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court struck out Cheong Wei Chang's claim against Lee Hsien Loong as vexatious and an abuse of process.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheong Wei Chang | Plaintiff, Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lee Hsien Loong | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Sivakumar Ramasamy, Gabriel Lim |
| Attorney-General | Plaintiff | Government Agency | Application Granted | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Valerie Thean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sivakumar Ramasamy | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gabriel Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sui Yi Siong | Eversheds Harry Elias LLP |
4. Facts
- Mr. Cheong filed a suit against Mr. Lee, claiming regulations were imposed on his activities.
- Mr. Cheong's Statement of Claim requested a receipt, contractual payment, or document stating terms and remuneration regarding the regulations of his activities.
- Mr. Cheong sought a stop to every regulation of his activities coming from the Defendant and/or his department(s).
- The Attorney-General applied to strike out the action on the ground that it was frivolous, vexatious, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
- Mr. Cheong's claim was that Mr. Lee or the Prime Minister’s Office were imposing regulations on his activities.
- Mr. Cheong did not plead any facts demonstrating that Mr. Lee or any person from the Prime Minister’s Office had offered any terms to Mr. Cheong, or had accepted any offers made by Mr. Cheong.
- The Statement of Claim enclosed documents with miscellaneous pictures pertaining to a variety of problems, generally with a caption on the side.
5. Formal Citations
- Cheong Wei Chang v Lee Hsien Loong and another matter, Suit No 489 of 2018 (Summons No 2809 of 2018) and Originating Summons No 1071 of 2018, [2018] SGHC 217
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit No 125 of 2018 filed by Mr Cheong Wei Chang against Mr Lee Hsien Loong | |
| Action in Suit 125 struck out | |
| Suit No 489 of 2018 filed by Mr Cheong Wei Chang against Mr Lee Hsien Loong | |
| Summons No 2809 of 2018 filed by the Attorney-General to strike out the action | |
| Ministry of Law Consultation Paper issued | |
| Court explains doubts about inherent powers to parties | |
| Attorney-General files submissions and Originating Summons No 1071 of 2018 | |
| Hearing held | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff's claim was an abuse of process due to res judicata, as it was essentially the same claim that was advanced in a previous suit.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Res judicata
- Cause of action estoppel
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582
- [2014] 3 SLR 1161
- [2001] 3 SLR(R) 296
- [2017] 2 SLR 12
- [2015] 5 SLR 1104
- Vexatious Litigation
- Outcome: The court exercised its inherent power to restrain the litigant from filing any further similar action without first seeking the leave of court.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2000] 2 SLR 589
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 412
- [2016] 5 SLR 476
- [2017] 5 SLR 1206
- [2004] 1 WLR 88
- [2000] Ch 484
- Inherent Powers of the Court
- Outcome: The court determined that it had the inherent power to restrain future litigation to prevent abuse of process, even in the absence of a specific statutory provision.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
- [2003] 2 SLR(R) 353
- [2013] 3 SLR 258
- [2006] 2 SLR(R) 117
- Cause of Action
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff's claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Receipt, contractual payment/document(s) stating terms and remuneration with regards to the regulations of activities
- A stop on every regulation of activities coming from the Defendant and/or his department(s)
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chua Choon Lim Robert v MN Swami and others | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 589 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the High Court has the power under its inherent jurisdiction to make a restraining order in the context of civil proceedings, in addition to the power under section 74 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| Attorney-General v Tee Kok Boon | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 412 | Singapore | Cited for questioning whether the inherent power of the court to make a restraining order against a vexatious litigant has been superseded by section 74 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, especially if the applicant is the Attorney-General. |
| Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited for the possibility that the court can make a restraining order against a vexatious litigant on its own accord, even if the Attorney-General has not made an application under section 74(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, but this power must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. |
| Attorney-General v Tham Yim Siong and others | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 1206 | Singapore | Cited for questioning whether the court's inherent powers could render section 74 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act otiose. |
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 117 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if there is an existing rule already covering the situation at hand, the courts would generally not invoke its inherent powers, save perhaps in the most exceptional circumstances. |
| Roberto Building Material Pte Ltd and others v Overseas-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 353 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the inherent jurisdiction of the court should only be exercised in special circumstances where the justice of the case so demands. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 258 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the exercise of the right to regulate matters before the court should be properly referred to as the exercise of the court's inherent powers, rather than its inherent jurisdiction. |
| Bhamjee v Forsdick and others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 1 WLR 88 | England and Wales | Cited for the UK position on the court's inherent powers to protect its process from abuse and the principles relating to the exercise of that jurisdiction. |
| Ebert v Venvil and Another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] Ch 484 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court has the inherent power to make an extended civil restraint order to prevent the initiation of fresh proceedings without leave of court in relation to matters that have already been adjudicated upon in a prior suit. |
| J S Grepe v Loam | Not Available | Yes | (1887) 37 ChD 168 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court has the inherent power to prevent further applications in existing proceedings being made without the leave of court. |
| Commonwealth Trading Bank v Inglis and another | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1974) 131 CLR 311 | Australia | Cited for declining to extend civil restraint orders beyond existing proceedings, reasoning that the court had no inherent power to do so. |
| Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court retains the inherent power to strike out an action on the basis that the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court. |
| Manharlal Trikamadas Mody and another v Sumikin Bussan International (HK) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1161 | Singapore | Cited for the four requirements for cause of action estoppel. |
| Setiadi Hendrawan v OCBC Securities Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 296 | Singapore | Cited as precedent that there is no need for a full trial in order for a decision to be final and conclusive on the merits for cause of action estoppel. |
| Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 12 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the observations made in Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 at [28] and highlighting that finality for the purposes of res judicata refers to a determination made by a court of a party’s liability or his rights or obligations that leaves nothing else to be judicially determined. |
| 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 | Cited for the principle that in determining whether cause of action estoppel applies, the central inquiry will be directed at whether the later action is in substance a direct attack on and seeks to reverse, other than by way of a permitted appeal, an earlier decision made in relation to a disputed matter between the same parties. |
| The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court | Not Available | Yes | (1970) 23 CLP 23 | Not Available | Cited for describing abuse of process and the court's power to prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation or oppression in the process of litigation. |
| Von Risefer v Permanent Trustee Co Pty Ltd | Queensland Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] QCA 109 | Australia | Cited for distinguishing Inglis on the basis that there was no Queensland legislation that had cut down the inherent power of the courts to prevent abuse of the processes of the court. |
| Velissaris v Dynami Pty Ltd and Another | Victoria Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] VSCA 299 | Australia | Cited for highlighting the deficiencies in the material before the High Court in Inglis and endorsing the approach in Von Risefer. |
| Manolakis v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and others | Supreme Court of South Australia | Yes | [2009] SASC 193 | Australia | Cited for endorsing a similar approach to Von Risefer and Velissaris. |
| Ng Yat Chi v Max Share Ltd and Another | Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal | Yes | [2005] HKCU 69 | Hong Kong | Cited for endorsing extended civil restraint orders and adopting much of the reasoning in Ebert. |
| Hok v Alberta | Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench | Yes | (2016) ABQB 651 | Canada | Cited for the proposition that the VAA and its successors do not codify the court's authority, but instead legislative and common-law inherent jurisdiction control processes co-exist. |
| Dykun v Odishaw | Alberta Court of Appeal | Yes | (2001) ABA 204 | Canada | Cited for issuing a general civil restraint order as an injunction, not in accordance with the procedure for the vexatious litigant restrictions. |
| 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee) | Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench | Yes | (2017) ABQB 548 | Canada | Cited for endorsing the existence of extended and general civil restraint orders, independently of the scheme under the equivalent of section 74 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 821 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the inherent jurisdiction of the court should only be exercised in special circumstances where the justice of the case so demands. |
| Star City Pty Ltd (formerly known as Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Ltd) v Tan Hong Woon | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 306 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the provision regulates proceedings rather than affects the existence of a legal right, it is a procedural provision. |
| AG v Barker | Not Available | Yes | [2000] 1 FLR 764 | Not Available | Cited for the explanation of 'habitually and persistently' litigation. |
| Mahajan v Department of Constitutional Affairs | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2004] EWCA Civ 946 | England and Wales | Cited for the Department of Constitutional Affairs successfully applying for a restraining order under the inherent powers of the court while represented by the Treasury Solicitor. |
| Secretary for Justice v Ma Kwai Chun | High Court of Hong Kong | Yes | [2005] HKCU 1808 | Hong Kong | Cited for supporting that when the Attorney-General applies under section 74 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, he acts as the custodian of the public interest. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 18 r 19 |
| Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (UK) Rule 3.11 |
| Practice Direction 3C (UK) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 74 | Singapore |
| Government Proceedings Act (Cap 121, 1985 Rev Ed) s 19(3) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 193 | Singapore |
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Attorney-General (Additional Functions) Act (Cap 16A, 2017 Rev Ed) ss 3 and 4 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Vexatious litigant
- Inherent powers
- Abuse of process
- Cause of action estoppel
- Civil restraint order
- Extended civil restraint order
- General civil restraint order
- Res judicata
- Regulations of activities
15.2 Keywords
- Vexatious litigation
- Inherent jurisdiction
- Abuse of process
- Striking out
- Civil restraint order
16. Subjects
- Civil procedure
- Vexatious litigants
- Inherent powers of court
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Courts and Jurisdiction
- Inherent Powers
- Striking Out
- Vexatious Litigant