Case Details
- Citation: [2007] SGHC 24
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2007-02-21
- Judges: Sundaresh Menon JC
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Lee Hsien Loong
- Defendant/Respondent: Review Publishing Co Ltd and Another and Another Suit
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Service
- Statutes Referenced: Supreme Court Judicature Act, Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Cases Cited: [2001] SGHC 262, [2007] SGHC 24
- Judgment Length: 33 pages, 21,648 words
Summary
This case involves a defamation lawsuit brought by the Prime Minister and Minister Mentor of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, against the publisher and editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review magazine. The key issues were whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case, given that the defendants were based in Hong Kong, and whether the service of process on the defendants was valid. The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the court had jurisdiction and that service was properly effected.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiffs in this case were Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore, and Lee Kuan Yew, the Minister Mentor. The defendants were Review Publishing Co Ltd, the publisher of the Far Eastern Economic Review magazine, and Hugo Restall, the editor of the magazine. In July/August 2006, the Review published an article written by Restall titled "Singapore's 'Martyr', Chee Soon Juan", which the plaintiffs alleged was defamatory.
Because the Review is a company incorporated in Hong Kong and Restall is ordinarily resident in Hong Kong, and both defendants declined to accept service in Singapore voluntarily, the plaintiffs had to apply for leave to serve the writs out of the jurisdiction. Their applications were granted on August 28, 2006, and service was effected on September 4, 2006 by personally serving Restall and leaving copies of the writs at the Review's registered address in Hong Kong.
The defendants then entered an appearance to dispute the jurisdiction of the Singapore court, raising two main arguments: first, that the order granting leave to serve the writs out of the jurisdiction was an abuse of process because the claims were not confined to damages sustained or actions taken within Singapore; and second, that even if leave was properly granted, the writs were not served in an appropriate manner because service did not comply with the civil procedure convention between Singapore and Hong Kong.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
1. Whether the order granting leave to serve the writs out of the jurisdiction should be set aside as an abuse of process, on the basis that the claims for damages and injunctive relief were not confined to losses or actions within Singapore.
2. Whether the writs were served in an appropriate manner, in compliance with the civil procedure convention between Singapore and Hong Kong.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the first issue, the court found that the claims for damages were sufficiently confined to losses arising from the publication of the article in Singapore. While the plaintiffs had sought injunctive relief without geographic limitation, the court obtained an undertaking from the plaintiffs' counsel to limit any injunctive relief to Singapore. The court was therefore satisfied that the order granting leave to serve out of the jurisdiction was not an abuse of process.
On the second issue, the defendants argued that service should have been effected in accordance with the Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters between Singapore and China, which they claimed applied to Hong Kong. However, the court rejected this argument, finding that there was no subsisting civil procedure convention between Singapore and Hong Kong, and the Treaty did not apply to Hong Kong.
The court held that the burden of proving proper service was on the plaintiffs as the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. However, once the plaintiffs had obtained leave to serve out of the jurisdiction, the burden shifted to the defendants to show that service was not effected in an appropriate manner. The court found that the plaintiffs had discharged their burden, and the defendants had failed to show that service was improper.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed the defendants' appeals and upheld the assistant registrar's decision. The court found that the order granting leave to serve the writs out of the jurisdiction was valid, and that service of the writs was effected in an appropriate manner. The case was therefore allowed to proceed on the merits.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for several reasons:
First, it highlights the challenges faced by plaintiffs in defamation cases where the publisher is located in a different jurisdiction from the plaintiff. Obtaining leave to serve out of the jurisdiction and ensuring valid service can be a complex and contentious process.
Second, the case provides guidance on the burden of proof in such cases. The court clarified that the burden is initially on the plaintiff to show that the case falls within the scope of the rules allowing service out of the jurisdiction. However, once leave is granted, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that service was not effected properly.
Third, the case addresses the issue of whether civil procedure conventions or treaties between jurisdictions apply to the service of process. The court's finding that there was no subsisting convention between Singapore and Hong Kong, and that the China-Singapore treaty did not extend to Hong Kong, is an important precedent.
Overall, this case provides valuable guidance on the procedural hurdles and legal principles involved in cross-border defamation litigation, which is an increasingly common issue in the digital age.
Legislation Referenced
- Supreme Court Judicature Act
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
Cases Cited
- [2001] SGHC 262
- [2007] SGHC 24
Source Documents
This article analyses [2007] SGHC 24 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.