Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore: Striking Out, Res Judicata, Perjury Allegations
Ms. Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie appealed against the decision to strike out her originating summons against the National University of Singapore (NUS). Ms. Ten sought to set aside a previous judgment, alleging perjury by NUS witnesses. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issues were res judicata and constituted an abuse of process. The court found that Ms. Ten was attempting to relitigate issues that had already been decided or could have been raised in prior proceedings.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against striking out of originating summons. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the issues raised were res judicata and an abuse of process.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The National University of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Appeal Dismissed | Won | |
| Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Valerie Thean | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tay Jia Yi Pesdy | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Charlene Wong Su-Yi | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Ms. Ten previously brought an action against NUS, which was dismissed on 9 July 2018.
- Ms. Ten seeks to set aside the Judgment on the premise that it was tainted by fraud because of perjury on the part of NUS’s witnesses.
- Ms Ten commenced proceedings against NUS on 8 August 2012.
- On 4 September 2006, NUS terminated her candidature with immediate effect before she obtained her degree.
- Ms Ten brought suit against NUS to award her the degree and claimed damages for breach of contract, misfeasance in public office, intimidation and negligence.
- Ms Ten was dissatisfied with the way NUS had handled her complaint against Dr Wong.
- Ms Ten filed the OS seeking to set aside the Judgment for Suit 667 on the basis that it is tainted with perjury.
5. Formal Citations
- Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore, Originating Summons No 226 of 2021 (Registrar’s Appeal No 351 of 2021), [2022] SGHC 247
- Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore, , [2018] SGHC 158
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ms Ten commenced proceedings against NUS | |
| All of Ms Ten’s claims were dismissed by Woo Bih Li J | |
| Ms Ten filed an application to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the Judgment | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed Ms Ten’s application for an extension of time to appeal | |
| NUS served a statutory demand on Ms Ten | |
| Ms Ten filed an application to set aside the statutory demand | |
| Maniam JC dismissed Ms Ten’s appeal against AR Low’s decision | |
| Ms Ten filed the OS | |
| NUS applied for the OS to be struck out | |
| The AR granted NUS’s application, striking out the OS | |
| Ms Ten appealed against the AR’s decision | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court held that the originating summons was an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 1104
- Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court held that the issues raised in the originating summons were res judicata.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 1104
- Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud
- Outcome: The court held that the requirements for setting aside a judgment on the grounds of fraud were not met.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 1 SLR 206
- [2001] 1 SLR(R) 213
- Apparent Bias
- Outcome: The court held that there was no reasonable suspicion or apprehension of bias.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 2 SLR 1156
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside the Judgment for Suit 667
- Recusal of Justice Woo Bih Li
- Recusal of Justice Andre Maniam
- Costs on the indemnity basis
9. Cause of Actions
- Setting Aside Judgment
- Fraud
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Education
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 158 | Singapore | The original case in which Ms. Ten's claims were dismissed, which she now seeks to set aside due to alleged perjury. |
| Harmonious Coretrades Pte Ltd v United Integrated Services Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 206 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a judgment may be set aside if obtained by fraud. |
| Ong Cher Keong v Goh Chin Soon Ricky | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 213 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements to set aside a judgment obtained by fraud, including the discovery of fraud after the judgment was passed. |
| 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 principles of issue estoppel and the extended doctrine of res judicata. |
| Watt (formerly Carter) and others v Ahsan | House of Lords | Yes | [2008] 1 AC 696 | United Kingdom | Cited for the definition of issue estoppel. |
| Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for issue estoppel to arise. |
| Blair v Curran | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1939) 62 CLR 464 | Australia | Cited to distinguish between issues which are steps in reasoning and those cardinal to the decision. |
| Henderson v Henderson | High Court of Chancery | Yes | (1843) 3 Hare 100 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that parties must bring forward their whole case in litigation. |
| BWG v BWF | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 1296 | Singapore | Cited to clarify the application of the Henderson rule. |
| Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police | House of Lords | Yes | [1982] AC 529 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that initiating proceedings to mount a collateral attack on a final decision is an abuse of process. |
| Ching Chew Weng Paul and others v Ching Pui Sim and others | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 869 | Singapore | Cited for the summary on how assertions of perjury should be dealt with. |
| Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | (1986) 6 NSWLR 534 | Australia | Cited for the summary on how assertions of perjury should be dealt with. |
| Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 WLR 984 | England and Wales | Distinguished from the present case as it involved fresh material evidence and fraud had not been raised in prior proceedings. |
| Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Chew | High Court | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673 | Singapore | Distinguished from the present case as it involved fresh material evidence and fraud had not been raised in prior proceedings. |
| Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Highland Financial Partners lp | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 CLC 596 | England and Wales | Cited for the principles regarding conscious and deliberate dishonesty in relation to evidence. |
| The Ampthill Peerage | House of Lords | Yes | [1977] AC 547 | United Kingdom | Cited for the importance of finality in litigation. |
| Yee Heng Khay (alias Roger) v Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC(A) 20 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that affidavit evidence is usually not sufficient to lead to a finding of fraud. |
| BOI v BOJ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited for the law on apparent bias. |
| TOW v TOV | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 725 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that adverse comments or findings against a litigant are not sufficient for a recusal application. |
| Chee Siok Chin and another v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 541 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that judge shopping is not to be condoned. |
| Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 760 | Singapore | Cited for the courts’ concern with managing and preventing multiplicity of litigation. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 5 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Striking out
- Res judicata
- Issue estoppel
- Extended doctrine of res judicata
- Perjury
- Fraud
- Abuse of process
- Apparent bias
15.2 Keywords
- Striking out
- Res judicata
- Perjury
- Fraud
- Abuse of process
- Singapore
- NUS
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 90 |
| Res Judicata | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Inherent powers | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Jurisdiction | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Res Judicata
- Fraud
- Judicial Review