Loke Wei Sue v Paul Jeyasingham Edwards: Extended Civil Restraint Order for Vexatious Litigation

In Loke Wei Sue v Paul Jeyasingham Edwards, the High Court of Singapore, on February 20, 2024, granted an extended civil restraint order against Mr. Edwards, preventing him from commencing further actions related to his previous tenancy with Ms. Loke. The court found that Mr. Edwards had persistently initiated meritless actions and applications, justifying the restraint order under Section 73C of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Extended civil restraint order granted against the respondent.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court granted an extended civil restraint order against Paul Jeyasingham Edwards, a vexatious litigant, preventing him from re-litigating tenancy disputes.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Loke Wei SueApplicantIndividualExtended civil restraint order grantedWon
Paul Jeyasingham EdwardsRespondentIndividualExtended civil restraint order granted against respondentLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chua Ze XuanPDLegal LLC
Khan NazimPDLegal LLC

4. Facts

  1. Ms. Loke rented her property to Mr. Edwards.
  2. A tenancy dispute arose due to Mr. Edwards' failure to pay rent.
  3. Ms. Loke terminated the tenancy and sought repossession of the property.
  4. Mr. Edwards commenced multiple legal actions against Ms. Loke related to the tenancy dispute.
  5. The court found that Mr. Edwards persistently commenced actions and applications that were totally without merit.
  6. Mr. Edwards continued to relitigate the issue of Ms. Loke's purported misrepresentation in OSS 94.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Loke Wei Sue v Paul Jeyasingham Edwards, Originating Application No 1021 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 45

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Tenancy commenced between Ms. Loke and Mr. Edwards.
Written tenancy agreement signed.
Mr. Edwards defaulted on rent payment.
Letter of demand issued to Mr. Edwards.
Notice of repossession and termination of tenancy issued.
Ms Loke commenced DC/OSS 94/2021 ex parte to seek leave to levy a writ of distress against Mr Edwards.
OSS 94 granted.
Ms Loke filed for a writ of distress, DC/WD 8/2021.
Mr Edwards filed DC/SUM 3103/2021 to set aside OSS 94.
Ms Loke commenced DC/DC 1662/2021 against Mr Edwards.
Mr Edwards filed DC/SUM 3325/2021 for a stay of execution of DC 1662 until SUM 3103 was disposed of.
SUM 3103 and SUM 3325 were dismissed.
Mr Edwards filed DC/SUM 3720/2021 for a stay of execution of OSS 94 until DC 1662 was heard.
Ms Loke filed DC/SUM 3736/2021 for summary judgment of DC 1662.
Mr Edwards filed DC/SUM 3869/2021 to set aside OSS 94 until 30 November 2021 and DC/SUM 3868/2021 to set aside DC 1662 until 30 November 2021.
SUM 3720 was dismissed.
SUM 3868 and SUM 3869 were dismissed.
Summary judgment granted in SUM 3736.
Mr Edwards filed DC/RA 1/2022 to appeal against the summary judgment granted in SUM 3736.
Mr Edwards filed DC/SUM 151/2022 to stay the execution of the summary judgment obtained in SUM 3736 until RA 1 was heard.
Mr Edwards commenced DC 146 against Ms Loke.
RA 1 was dismissed.
Mr Edwards filed HC/RAS 5/2022 to appeal against the decision in RA 1.
Ms Loke filed DC/SUM 251/2022 for committal proceedings against Mr Edwards.
Ms Loke filed DC/SUM 511/2022, an application to commence committal proceedings against Mr Edwards.
Mr Edwards filed DC/SUM 495/2022 to stay the enforcement of the summary judgment obtained in SUM 3736 until 15 May 2022.
Ms Loke filed DC/SUM 853/2022 to strike out DC 146.
Mr Edwards filed DC/SUM 849/2022.
SUM 495 was dismissed.
Mr Edwards withdrew RAS 5.
SUM 849 was dismissed.
Ms Loke commenced HC/B 1325/2022 for a bankruptcy order against Mr Edwards.
Mr Edwards commenced DC/OC 311/2022 against Ms Loke.
Mr Edwards vacated the Property.
Ms Loke filed DC/SUM 2992/2022 to strike out OC 311.
SUM 853 was granted and DC 146 was struck out.
SUM 2992 was granted, and OC 311 was struck out.
Mr Edwards filed DC/RA 82/2022, an appeal against the decision in SUM 2992.
RA 82 was dismissed.
Ms Loke applied to restrain Mr Edwards from commencing any action or application.
Mr Edwards commenced a new action, DC/OC 1751/2023, against Ms Loke.
Hearing for Ms Loke's application to restrain Mr Edwards.
Court granted Ms Loke the order.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Vexatious Litigation
    • Outcome: The court found that the respondent was a vexatious litigant and granted an extended civil restraint order against him.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Persistent commencement of meritless actions
      • Relitigation of adjudicated issues
    • Related Cases:
      • [2020] 5 SLR 869
      • [2023] SGHC 191
      • [2019] 3 SLR 326
      • [2000] 2 SLR(R) 589
  2. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court found that the respondent's actions constituted an abuse of process.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Relitigation of issues barred by res judicata
      • Filing unmeritorious applications
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 5 SLR 1104

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Extended civil restraint order

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Joseph Clement Louis Arokiasamy v Singapore Airlines Ltd and another matterHigh CourtYes[2020] 5 SLR 869SingaporeCited for the principles regarding the grant of an extended civil restraint order and the interpretation of Section 73C of the SCJA.
The National University of Singapore v Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-MarieHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 191SingaporeCited for the principles regarding the grant of an extended civil restraint order and the interpretation of Section 73C of the SCJA.
Cheong Wei Chang v Lee Hsien LoongHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 326SingaporeCited for the court's consideration of prior actions being vexatious, an abuse of process, or not disclosing a reasonable cause of action when granting civil restraint orders.
Chua Choon Lim Robert v MN Swami and othersHigh CourtYes[2000] 2 SLR(R) 589SingaporeCited for the court's consideration of prior actions being vexatious, an abuse of process, or not disclosing a reasonable cause of action when granting civil restraint orders.
Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 1053SingaporeCited for the principle that a successful litigant is not deprived of the fruits of his litigation without good reason.
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 appealCourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 1104SingaporeCited for the principle of issue estoppel and the public interest in requiring finality in litigation.
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and othersCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649SingaporeCited for the principle that a claim will only be struck out for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action if it does not disclose any question fit to be decided at trial.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 73C of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Extended civil restraint order
  • Vexatious litigant
  • Tenancy dispute
  • Res judicata
  • Abuse of process
  • Misrepresentation
  • Rent arrears

15.2 Keywords

  • civil restraint order
  • vexatious litigant
  • tenancy
  • litigation
  • singapore
  • court
  • judgment

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Vexatious litigants90
Civil Restraint Order90
Landlord and Tenant Law85
Civil Procedure75
Civil Practice70
Property Law60
Jurisdiction50
Administrative Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Vexatious Litigation
  • Tenancy Law