Mah Kiat Seng v Attorney-General: Mental Health Act, Leave to Bring Civil Proceedings, Extension of Time
In Mah Kiat Seng v Attorney-General, the High Court of Singapore heard an originating summons by Mr. Mah Kiat Seng seeking leave under s 25(2) of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act to commence proceedings against officers involved in his arrest and detention, and for an extension of time to appeal costs orders from a related State Courts action. The court dismissed the originating summons, finding no substantial ground to believe the officers acted in bad faith or without reasonable care, and that the extension of time application lacked merit.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Originating summons dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Mr. Mah's application for leave to bring civil proceedings under the Mental Health Act and for extension of time.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Defendant | Government Agency | Successful defense | Won | Jessie Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers Gordon Lim Wei Wen of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mah Kiat Seng | Plaintiff | Individual | Originating summons dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohamed Rosli bin Mohamed | Defendant | Individual | Successful defense | Won | Jessie Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers Gordon Lim Wei Wen of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Chin Thiam Lawrence | Defendant | Individual | Successful defense | Won | Jessie Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers Gordon Lim Wei Wen of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Valerie Thean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jessie Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gordon Lim Wei Wen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Mr. Mah was arrested by police officers under s 7 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act on 7 July 2017.
- A female complainant reported that Mr. Mah had touched her son’s head and pulled his hair.
- SSgt Rosli and his colleague approached Mr. Mah, who appeared fidgety and agitated, and was mumbling to himself.
- Mr. Mah gave incoherent replies to questions, claiming he was at Suntec City for different reasons.
- SSgt Rosli obtained approval from his Duty Investigation Officer to arrest Mr. Mah under s 7 of the MHCTA.
- Mr. Mah refused to cooperate during the arrest and was placed in an arm lock and handcuffed.
- Mr. Mah was examined by Dr. Raymond Lim, who noted that Mr. Mah did not seem to be making sense and was constantly talking to himself.
- Mr. Mah was interviewed by Inspector Tan, who explained that he had been arrested under s 7 of the MHCTA.
- Mr. Mah was escorted to IMH and discharged later the same day.
5. Formal Citations
- Mah Kiat Seng v Attorney-General and others, Originating Summons No 1084 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 108
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. Mah arrested under s 7 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act | |
| Mr. Mah examined and discharged from the Institute of Mental Health | |
| Mr. Mah filed District Court Suit No 2430 of 2017 | |
| Deputy Registrar struck out Mr. Mah’s statement of claim | |
| Mr. Mah filed a notice of appeal against the decision of the DR | |
| District Judge declined to grant an extension of time to serve the notice of appeal | |
| Mr. Mah filed Summons No 2755 of 2018 seeking an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal to a Judge of the High Court in Chambers against the total costs orders of $7,500 | |
| District Judge dismissed Mr. Mah’s application | |
| Mr. Mah filed a High Court Originating Summons No 1084 of 2018 | |
| The High Court dismissed Mr. Mah’s originating summons | |
| Reasons furnished for dismissing the originating summons |
7. Legal Issues
- Leave to bring civil proceedings under s 25(2) of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act
- Outcome: Leave to commence civil proceedings was declined.
- Category: Substantive
- Extension of time to file application for leave to appeal
- Outcome: Application for extension of time was dismissed.
- Category: Procedural
- Leave to appeal against costs orders
- Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against costs orders was dismissed.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to file application for leave to appeal
- Leave to appeal against costs orders
- Leave to bring civil proceedings under s 25(2) of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Mental Health Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757 | Singapore | Cited for the principles applicable to the grant of an extension of time. |
| Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 926 | Singapore | Cited for the threshold to be applied when considering the merits of the intended appeal. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd and another v Fraser & Neave Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 355 | Singapore | Cited to explain the threshold to be applied when considering the merits of the intended appeal. |
| Pearson Judith Rosemary v Chen Chien Wen Edwin | High Court | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 260 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the chances of the appeal succeeding should be considered, as it would be a waste of time for all concerned if time is extended when the appeal is utterly hopeless. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862 | Singapore | Cited for the three limbs which a party can rely upon when seeking leave to appeal. |
| Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority and another application | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 558 | Singapore | Cited for reiterating the three limbs which a party can rely upon when seeking leave to appeal. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1279 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs are at the discretion of the judge or the court, to be awarded whenever and against whom it is just to do so. |
| Denko-HLB Sdn Bhd v Fagerdala Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 336 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that a delay of 14 days in making an application for further arguments was considered to be substantial. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2911 v Tham Keng Mun and others | High Court | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 1263 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that a delay of nine days in serving a notice of appeal was not de minimis. |
| Ratnam v Cumarasamy | Privy Council | Yes | [1965] 1 WLR 8 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that time norms are central to fairness between parties and must prima facie be obeyed. |
| Falmac Ltd v Cheng Ji Lai Charlie and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 202 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the merits of the applicant’s case must take centre stage. |
| Chen Chien Wen Edwin v Pearson Judith Rosemary | High Court | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR(R) 348 | Singapore | Considered a similar provision in the form of the then O 57 r 17 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, which was also concerned with the power to extend time. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] SGCA 3 | Singapore | Affirmed the decision in Chen Chien Wen Edwin in the context of an extension of time required for filing notices of appeal after the expiry of the specified 14-day period for appeals against a decision of the High Court. |
| Lioncity Construction Co Pte Ltd v JFC Builders Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 141 | Singapore | Affirmed the decision in Chen Chien Wen Edwin in the context of an extension of time required for filing notices of appeal after the expiry of the specified 14-day period for appeals against a decision of a District Court. |
| Seal (FC) (Appellant) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (Respondent) | House of Lords | Yes | [2007] 1 WLR 1910 | United Kingdom | Reliance was placed on this case to argue that the threshold required for leave is a low one. |
| TW v Enfield London Borough Council | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 WLR 3665 | United Kingdom | Reliance was placed on this case to argue that the threshold required for leave is a low one. |
| Winch v Jones | High Court | Yes | [1985] 3 WLR 729 | United Kingdom | Reliance was placed on this case to argue that the threshold required for leave is a low one. |
| Carter v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1975] 1 WLR 507 | United Kingdom | Emphasis was placed on this decision to argue that the threshold required for leave is not a low one. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan Mohd Ali v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of bad faith. |
| Shackleton v Swift | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1913] 2 KB 304 | United Kingdom | Cited for the requirement of bad faith. |
| JSI Shipping (S) Pte Ltd v Teofoongwonglcloong (a firm) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 460 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of care expected of an auditor. |
| Matthews v Ministry of Defence | House of Lords | Yes | [2003] 2 WLR 435 | United Kingdom | Referenced by Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe in Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] 2 WLR 435 (“Matthews”) at [131]). |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act (Cap 178A, 2012 Rev Ed.) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act
- Leave to bring civil proceedings
- Extension of time
- Bad faith
- Reasonable care
- Substantial ground
- Costs orders
- Arrest
- Detention
- Mental disorder
15.2 Keywords
- Mental Health Act
- Civil Proceedings
- Extension of Time
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Mental Health Law | 90 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Appellate Practice | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Evidence Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Mental Health Law
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals