Arokaisamy v Singapore Airlines: Res Judicata & Vexatious Litigation in Wrongful Dismissal Claim
In Joseph Clement Louis Arokaisamy v Singapore Airlines Ltd, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Mr. Arokaisamy's appeal against the striking out of his claim and granted Singapore Airlines' application for a civil restraint order. The court, presided over by Andre Maniam JC, found Mr. Arokaisamy's claim to be barred by res judicata, as it was an attempt to re-litigate his wrongful dismissal claim, which had been previously dismissed and was unappealable. The court also found that Mr. Arokaisamy had persistently commenced actions that were totally without merit.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed and Restraint Order Granted
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court struck out Arokaisamy's claim against Singapore Airlines, finding it barred by res judicata. The court also issued a civil restraint order to prevent further re-litigation of his wrongful dismissal claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Airlines Limited | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Restraint Order Granted | Won | |
| Joseph Clement Louis Arokaisamy | Plaintiff, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andre Maniam | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chng Teck Kian Desmond | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Mr. Clement was employed by Singapore Airlines from 1973 until his dismissal in 1997.
- Mr. Clement sued Singapore Airlines for wrongful dismissal in 1997, which was dismissed in 2003.
- Mr. Clement's appeal to the High Court was dismissed in 2004.
- Mr. Clement's attempts to appeal to the Court of Appeal were unsuccessful.
- Mr. Clement filed HC/OS 1595/2019 seeking interpretations of the Employment Act and declarations of procedural impropriety.
- Singapore Airlines applied to strike out HC/OS 1595/2019, which was successful.
- Mr. Clement was a bankrupt until 2017.
5. Formal Citations
- Joseph Clement Louis Arokaisamy v Singapore Airlines Ltd and another matter, , [2020] SGHC 150
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr Clement employed by Singapore Airlines Limited | |
| Mr Clement's period of absence began | |
| Singapore Airlines issued termination letter | |
| Mr Clement sued Singapore Airlines for wrongful dismissal | |
| Wrongful dismissal claim dismissed by District Judge Valerie Thean | |
| Mr Clement's appeal dismissed by Woo Bih Li J | |
| Court of Appeal struck out Mr Clement's notice of appeal | |
| Mr Clement filed application for leave to appeal | |
| Application for leave to appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal | |
| Mr Clement filed application to re-amend Statement of Claim | |
| Mr Clement's amendment application was dismissed | |
| Mr Clement filed HC/OS 1310/2005 | |
| HC/OS 1310/2005 dismissed by V K Rajah J | |
| Mr Clement discharged from bankruptcy | |
| Mr Clement filed HC/OS 1595/2019 | |
| Hearing of HC/RA 87/2020 and HC/OS 490/2020 | |
| Judgment issued dismissing HC/RA 87/2020 and allowing HC/OS 490/2020 |
7. Legal Issues
- Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court held that Mr. Clement's claim was barred by res judicata.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Cause of action estoppel
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 1004
- Vexatious Litigation
- Outcome: The court granted a civil restraint order to prevent Mr. Clement from further re-litigating his wrongful dismissal claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 3 SLR 326
- Applicability of Section 13(2) of the Employment Act
- Outcome: The court found that the applicability of Section 13(2) had already been decided in previous proceedings.
- Category: Substantive
- Time Barred Claim
- Outcome: The court found that the claim was time-barred.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Interpretation of Section 13(2) of the Employment Act
- Declaration of Procedural Impropriety
- Declaration that Mr Clement is within time for this Application
9. Cause of Actions
- Wrongful Dismissal
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Aviation
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joseph Clement Louis Arokaisamy v Singapore Airlines Limited | District Court | Yes | [2003] SGDC 137 | Singapore | The High Court referred to the District Court's judgment in dismissing Mr. Clement's wrongful dismissal claim. |
| Joseph Clement Louis Arokaisamy v Singapore Airlines Limited | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 233 | Singapore | The High Court referred to its previous judgment dismissing Mr. Clement's appeal against the District Court's decision. |
| 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 1004 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of res judicata and cause of action estoppel. |
| North Staffordshire Railway Company v Edge | House of Lords | Yes | [1920] AC 254 | England and Wales | Cited regarding a new issue not pleaded or argued before the trial judge. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 258 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between the court's inherent jurisdiction and inherent powers. |
| Cheong Wei Chang v Lee Hsien Loong and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 326 | Singapore | Cited for the discussion on the court's inherent powers to restrain vexatious litigation. |
| Lee Siew Ngug and others v Lee Brothers (Wee Kee) Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 1093 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's inherent powers should be invoked sparingly. |
| Attorney-General v Barker | England and Wales High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 FLR 759 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that habitual and persistent litigation is keeping on and on litigating when earlier litigation has been unsuccessful. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Employment Act (Cap 91, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 8 of the Employment Act | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 73C of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| s 29(1) of the Limitation Act | Singapore |
| s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act | Singapore |
| s 31 of the State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Res Judicata
- Cause of Action Estoppel
- Vexatious Litigation
- Extended Civil Restraint Order
- Wrongful Dismissal
- Section 13(2) Employment Act
- Procedural Impropriety
- Limitation Act
15.2 Keywords
- Res Judicata
- Vexatious Litigation
- Wrongful Dismissal
- Employment Act
- Civil Restraint Order
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Res Judicata | 90 |
| Vexatious proceedings | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Striking out | 70 |
| Inherent powers | 65 |
| Employment Law | 60 |
| Jurisdiction | 40 |
| Judicial Review | 30 |
| Summary Judgement | 30 |
| Administrative Law | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Res Judicata
- Employment Law
- Vexatious Litigation