Li See Kit Lawrence v Debate Association (Singapore): Breach of Contract, Negligence, Natural Justice, and Ultra Vires Action

Li See Kit Lawrence, father of the deceased Li Guangsheng, sued the Debate Association (Singapore) in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, alleging that the association's actions led to his son's suicide. The plaintiff claimed breach of contract, negligence, and tort under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton. See Kee Oon J partially allowed the claim, granting declarations that the Ban and Notice to Partners were unlawful, finding that the Debate Association acted ultra vires its constitution and in breach of the rules of natural justice.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim allowed in part. Declarations granted that the Ban and Notice to Partners were unlawful.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Father of deceased sued Debate Association for breach of contract, negligence, and tort, alleging actions led to son's suicide. Claims partially allowed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Li See Kit LawrencePlaintiffIndividualClaim Allowed in PartPartial
Debate Association (Singapore)DefendantAssociationClaim Partially UpheldPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Paul Ong Min-TsePaul Ong Chambers LLC
Darren Tan Tho EngInvictus Law Corporation
Silas Siew Wei YingInvictus Law Corporation
Joshua Tan Ming EnInvictus Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff's son, Li Guangsheng, committed suicide on 8 August 2018.
  2. The Debate Association (Singapore) issued a public statement on 7 August 2018 regarding allegations of misconduct against Li Guangsheng.
  3. The statement referred to allegations of inappropriate behavior by Li Guangsheng in a WhatsApp group named “DDI Darkness”.
  4. The Debate Association banned Li Guangsheng from all events and notified partner organizations.
  5. Li Guangsheng was a government scholar employed by Enterprise Singapore.
  6. Li Guangsheng had a history of mental health issues, including cyclothymic disorder and major depressive disorder.
  7. The ExCo did not convene a general meeting of the members of the defendant to decide whether any action should be taken against the Deceased in light of the findings of the Audit Report.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Li See Kit Lawrence v Debate Association (Singapore), Suit No 441 of 2021, [2023] SGHC 154

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Debate Association (Singapore) registered under the Societies Act.
The Deceased represented Singapore in international student debating competitions.
The Deceased obtained his undergraduate degree from Brown University.
The Deceased obtained masters’ degrees from the University of Cambridge.
The Deceased founded and directed the Debate Development Initiative (DDI).
The Deceased pressured a member of the Darkness Chat Group to exchange explicit photos.
The Deceased was a patient at Ko & Ko Specialists Pte Ltd.
The Deceased was referred to the Institute of Mental Health’s (IMH) Emergency Services.
Dr Pamela Ng Mei Yuan reviewed the Deceased.
The Deceased reported an incident of robbery and assault during a business trip to Brazil.
Dr Ng reviewed the Deceased.
The Deceased attended a session with a psychologist at IMH.
The ExCo issued a public statement concerning the Deceased.
The defendant notified Enterprise of the allegations against the Deceased.
The Deceased was notified of the Ban.
The Deceased committed suicide.
Trial began.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the Debate Association acted ultra vires its constitution and in breach of the rules of natural justice, thus breaching the contract of membership.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Ultra vires action
      • Breach of implied terms
      • Breach of natural justice
  2. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the Debate Association owed a duty of care to the deceased or that the association's actions caused the deceased's suicide.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Duty of care
      • Breach of duty
      • Causation
      • Remoteness
  3. Breach of Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court found that the Debate Association breached the rules of natural justice by failing to provide the deceased with a fair hearing and by demonstrating apparent bias.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Fair hearing rule
      • Rule against bias
  4. Ultra Vires Action
    • Outcome: The court found that the Debate Association acted ultra vires its constitution in imposing the ban and communicating the Notice to Partners.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
  5. Tort under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff's claim in tort under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton is unsustainable as all three of the requisite elements (viz, the conduct, mental and consequence elements) are not satisfied.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Conduct element
      • Mental element
      • Consequence element

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the Decision was unlawful
  2. Order setting aside the Decision
  3. Order requiring the defendant to remove the ExCo Statement
  4. Order requiring the defendant to publish a statement and apology
  5. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence
  • Tort under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Contract Disputes
  • Tort Law
  • Administrative Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wilkinson v DowntonQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1897] 2 QB 57England and WalesCited as the basis for one of the plaintiff's causes of action, specifically the tortious breach pursuant to the rule in Wilkinson v Downton.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100SingaporeCited for the test to establish the existence of a duty of care in negligence claims.
O (A Child) v Rhodes and another (English PEN and others intervening)UK Supreme CourtYes[2016] AC 219United KingdomCited for the three elements of the tort under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton.
Singapore Shooting Association and others v Singapore Rifle AssociationCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 395SingaporeCited to show that the doctrine of ultra vires is not strictly engaged in determining a contractual claim.
Singapore Rifle Association v Singapore Shooting Association and othersHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 13SingaporeCited for the principle that any rule relating to discipline should be framed in plain and unambiguous language.
The Stansfield Group Pte Ltd (trading as Stansfield College) and another v Consumers’ Association of Singapore and anotherHigh CourtYes[2011] 4 SLR 130SingaporeCited for the principle that whether the act of suspending a person from a position in the association or membership is penal or not, ultimately depends on the circumstances of the case.
John v ReesHigh CourtYes[1970] Ch 345England and WalesCited to show that a suspension was held to be penally equivalent to an expulsion which was punitive in nature.
Paul Wallis Furnell v Whangarei High Schools BoardPrivy CouncilYes[1973] AC 660New ZealandCited to show that a suspension was not considered to be punitive.
Chee Hock Keng v Chu Sheng TempleHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 192SingaporeCited for the principle that a broad provision in a constitution is not broad enough to encompass the power to expel members.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 193SingaporeCited for the test for implication of terms in fact.
Forefront Medical Technology (Pte) Ltd v Modern-Pak Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 927SingaporeCited for the principle that the implication of a term or terms in a particular contract creates no precedent for future cases.
Kay Swee Pin v Singapore Island Country ClubHigh CourtYes[2008] SGHC 143SingaporeCited for the principle that a claim is one in breach of contract, i.e. that the club had wrongfully suspended her membership in breach of the terms of contract found in the constitution and rules of the club.
Khong Kin Hoong Lawrence v Singapore Polo ClubHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 241SingaporeCited for the principle that the rules of natural justice are implied terms of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Sim Yong Teng and another v Singapore Swimming ClubHigh CourtYes[2015] 3 SLR 541SingaporeCited for the principle that the rules of natural justice can be recast as a duty to act fairly in all the circumstances of the case.
Kay Swee Pin v Singapore Island Country ClubCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 802SingaporeCited for the principle that a duty to act fairly involves a duty to act impartially.
BOI v BOJCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1156SingaporeCited for the applicable principles in relation to the doctrine of apparent bias.
Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and anotherUK Supreme CourtYes[2015] 1 WLR 1661United KingdomCited for the principle that the Decision may be reviewed by the court on the ground of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Export (Singapore) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 319SingaporeCited for the principle that the Decision may be reviewed by the court on the ground of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 166SingaporeCited for the principle that the Decision may be reviewed by the court on the ground of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 918SingaporeCited for the principle that substantial awards of damages for non-pecuniary loss arising from reputational damage and mental distress are generally contrary to policy.
Watts v MorrowCourt of AppealYes[1991] 1 WLR 1421England and WalesCited for the principle that where the very object of a contract is to provide pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation, damages will be awarded if the fruit of the contract is not provided or if the contrary result is procured instead.
Farley v SkinnerHouse of LordsYes[2001] 3 WLR 899United KingdomCited for the principle that it is sufficient that the provision of “mental benefits” is a major or important object of the contract.
Haron bin Mundir v Singapore Amateur Athletic AssociationHigh CourtYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 494SingaporeCited to show that since the case involved the suspension of a member of an athletics association, where the relationship between the association and its members could not be said to be one which had as its object the provision of “mental benefits”, the exception was therefore not triggered and the general rule thus prevailed.
Ngiam Kong Seng and another v Lim Chiew HockCourt of AppealYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 674SingaporeCited for the elements which must be established in order for a plaintiff to succeed in a claim founded on the tort of negligence.
JSI Shipping (S) Pte Ltd v Teofoongwonglcloong (a firm)Court of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 460SingaporeCited for the principle that proof of a recognisable psychiatric illness depends in the main upon the relevant expert psychiatric evidence tendered before the court.
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health AuthorityHouse of LordsYes[1998] AC 232United KingdomCited for the principle that proof of a recognisable psychiatric illness depends in the main upon the relevant expert psychiatric evidence tendered before the court.
Kanagaratnam Nicholas Jens v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] 5 SLR 887SingaporeCited for the importance of requiring experts to explain the underlying analytical process leading to their conclusions.
Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 1169SingaporeCited for the importance of requiring experts to explain the underlying analytical process leading to their conclusions.
McLoughlin v O’BrianHouse of LordsYes[1983] 1 AC 410United KingdomCited for the three factors to assess the legal proximity between the parties.
Watt v Hertfordshire County CouncilCourt of AppealYes[1954] 1 WLR 835England and WalesCited for the principle that in measuring due care you must balance the risk against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk.
Chin Bay Ching v Merchant Ventures Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 142SingaporeCited for the principle that the cases where the court should think that justice requires the grant of a mandatory injunction, to issue either a letter of withdrawal or correction, must be quite exceptional.
Excel Golf Pte Ltd v Allied Domecq Spirits & Wine (Singapore) LtdHigh CourtYes[2003] 4 SLR(R) 771SingaporeCited for the proposition that the law does not enable the court to require the party in breach of contract make a public apology for the breach.
Mercedes Benz A.G. v LeiduckHouse of LordsYes[1996] AC 284United KingdomCited for the width of the court’s power to grant injunctions.
Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 112SingaporeCited for the requirements that must be satisfied before the court grants declaratory relief.
Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 476SingaporeCited for the elements going towards the requirement for locus standi.
Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2022] 1 SLR 1318SingaporeCited for the principle that Braganza, MGA International and Leiman all involved the exercise of one party’s contractual discretion relating to rights subsisting within the contours of their respective contracts.
Tiong Sze Yin Serene v Chan Herng NiengHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 170SingaporeCited for the necessary elements to make out a claim under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Societies Act (Cap 311, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Civil Law Act 1909 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Debate Association (Singapore)
  • DDI Darkness
  • ExCo Statement
  • Ban Notification
  • Ultra vires
  • Natural justice
  • Acute stress reaction
  • Duty of care
  • Wilkinson v Downton
  • Constitution
  • Audit Report
  • Societies Act

15.2 Keywords

  • Debate Association
  • Suicide
  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence
  • Natural Justice
  • Ultra Vires
  • Singapore
  • Tort
  • Mental Health

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Administrative Law75
Fair Hearing Rule70
Rule against bias70
Unincorporated Associations65
Societies65
Torts60
Negligence60
Ultra vires50
Breach of Contract50
Contract Law50
Company Law20

16. Subjects

  • Administrative Law
  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law
  • Unincorporated Associations
  • Societies