Case Details
- Citation: [2023] SGHC 331
- Title: Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang and another matter
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Date of decision: 27 November 2023
- Judge: Goh Yihan J
- Originating Claims: HC/OC 496/2023 and HC/OC 497/2023
- Applicant/Claimant (OC 496): Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan
- Applicant/Claimant (OC 497): Vivian Balakrishnan
- Respondent/Defendant: Lee Hsien Yang
- Legal areas: Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders; Civil Procedure — Injunctions
- Procedural posture: Applications for judgment in default of a Notice of Intention to Contest or Not Contest under the Rules of Court 2021
- Remedies sought: Default judgments with damages to be assessed; injunctive relief restraining publication of defamatory allegations
- Key procedural issue: Whether the court may grant injunctive relief solely because the defendant failed to file a Notice of Intention
- Substantive context: Defamation based on Facebook posts
- Judgment length: 21 pages; 5,637 words
- Cases cited (as provided): [2014] SGHC 230; [2023] SGHC 331; [2023] SGHC 75
- Legislation referenced (as provided): Rules of Court 2021 (including O 6 r 6 and related provisions)
Summary
In Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang and another matter [2023] SGHC 331, the High Court considered two applications for judgment in default of a Notice of Intention to Contest or Not Contest (“Notice of Intention”) under the Rules of Court 2021 (“ROC 2021”). The defendant, Lee Hsien Yang, had been served with originating claims and statements of claim in two separate defamation actions brought by the claimants, but did not file and serve a Notice of Intention within the prescribed time. The central procedural question was whether the court could enter judgment—including injunctive relief—based solely on the defendant’s failure to file a Notice of Intention, or whether the court still needed to be satisfied that the claimants had made out a prima facie case in the absence of any defence.
The court held that the claimants satisfied the requirements for default judgment under O 6 r 6(5) of the ROC 2021. More importantly, the court also affirmed that it has power to grant injunctive relief in such an application under the ROC 2021, and that the scope of that power is not confined to damages alone. Applying the relevant principles to the facts, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from publishing or disseminating the defamatory allegations pleaded in the statements of claim, while ordering that damages be assessed at a later hearing.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The dispute arose from a Facebook post published by the defendant on the “timeline” of his Facebook profile page, “Lee Hsien Yang”, at or around 7.10pm on 23 July 2023 (“Post”). The claimants brought separate defamation actions against the defendant: OC 496 was brought by Mr Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan, and OC 497 was brought by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan. Although the claimants were different individuals, both claims were founded on the same Post and concerned allegations that the claimants had acted corruptly and for personal gain.
The Post contained multiple statements linking alleged wrongdoing to public-sector and political contexts. Among the pleaded “Offending Words” were allegations that ministers had leased state-owned mansions from an agency under their control, including references to “felling trees and getting state-sponsored renovations”, and that the claimants’ conduct evidenced corruption. The Post also included broader political commentary and allegations of corruption involving other entities and individuals. In the defamation pleadings, the claimants focused on specific allegations that they had acted corruptly and for personal gain by having the Singapore Land Authority (which the defendant alleged was under the relevant claimant’s control) give preferential treatment by felling trees without approval and illegally, and by giving preferential treatment by paying for renovations to specific addresses (26 Ridout Road in OC 496 and 31 Ridout Road in OC 497).
On 2 August 2023, the claimants commenced the two originating claims in the General Division of the High Court. Because the defendant was served out of jurisdiction, the claimants applied for permission to serve sealed copies of the originating claims and statements of claim out of Singapore. Assistant Registrars granted those applications. The claimants then sought and obtained permission for substituted service by Facebook messenger. Substituted service was effected on 15 September 2023: the claimant in OC 496 served the defendant at 4.01pm, and the claimant in OC 497 served the defendant at 4.15pm, both by Facebook messenger.
The evidence before the court indicated that the defendant saw the documents served on him. Notably, at around 12.43am on 16 September 2023, the defendant published a post confirming that he had been served with process in both OC 496 and OC 497. Despite this, the defendant failed to file and serve a Notice of Intention within the prescribed period. For a defendant served out of Singapore, the ROC 2021 provides a longer time limit than for in-jurisdiction service. The defendant’s failure meant that, by the relevant deadline (6 October 2023), he had not exercised the option to contest all or some of the claims.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first legal issue was whether the claimants had satisfied the procedural requirements for judgment in default of a Notice of Intention under O 6 r 6(5) of the ROC 2021. This required the court to examine whether the defendant had been properly served, whether the Notice of Intention had not been filed and served within the prescribed time, and whether the claimants had complied with the procedural steps necessary to apply for default judgment (including filing a memorandum of service in the prescribed form).
The second, more novel issue concerned the extent of the court’s power to grant injunctive relief in an application for judgment in default of a Notice of Intention under the ROC 2021. The court had to determine whether the court’s role in such an application is limited to entering judgment for damages (with damages to be assessed), or whether the court can also grant interim or final injunctive relief restraining the defendant from repeating the alleged wrongs—particularly where the defendant has not filed any defence.
Finally, the court had to decide whether, on the facts, the injunction should be granted. In defamation cases, injunctive relief is typically tied to the likelihood of repetition of the defamatory allegations and the need to protect the claimant’s reputation. Thus, even though the defendant did not contest the claims, the court still had to consider the appropriate legal principles governing injunctive relief and whether the pleaded case disclosed sufficient grounds for such relief.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the first issue, the court began with the text and structure of O 6 r 6 of the ROC 2021. The rule provides a procedural mechanism that replaces the older “memorandum of appearance” concept under the ROC 2014. Under O 6 r 6, once a defendant is served with an originating claim, the defendant must file and serve a Notice of Intention to contest or not contest within a specified time. The Notice is in Form 10. Critically, the rule expressly states that filing and serving the Notice is not treated as a submission to jurisdiction or as a waiver of improper service.
The court emphasised the function of the Notice of Intention: it gives the defendant a structured choice to contest or not contest, and in multi-claim scenarios it allows the defendant to differentiate between claims to be contested and those not contested. This design, as reflected in commentary and the Civil Justice Commission’s explanations, aims to clarify early whether the claimant should prepare for a contested hearing or whether the defendant has effectively surrendered the claims.
Applying O 6 r 6(5), the court held that the claimants satisfied the requirements for default judgment. The defendant was served out of Singapore, and the prescribed time for filing and serving the Notice of Intention was therefore 21 days after service of the statement of claim. The evidence showed that service was effected on 15 September 2023 and that the defendant did not file and serve a Notice of Intention by the deadline. Since no defence was filed and no Notice of Intention was served, the claimants were entitled to apply for judgment in default in Form 11, supported by a memorandum of service in Form 12. The court therefore entered default judgment with damages to be assessed.
The second issue required the court to address a “novel” question: whether the court can grant injunctive relief in an application for judgment in default under the ROC 2021, and if so, the extent of that power. The judge contrasted the “previous position” under the ROC 2014 with the “new position” under the ROC 2021. Under the ROC 2014 framework, the procedural consequences of a defendant’s failure to file a memorandum of appearance were understood in a particular way, and the availability of injunctive relief in default contexts could be more constrained or at least more contested. The ROC 2021, however, introduced the Notice of Intention as a more explicit procedural step, and the judge considered how that change affects the court’s remedial powers.
In resolving this, the court reasoned that the ROC 2021 does not restrict the court’s remedial discretion to damages alone. Where the claimant’s pleadings disclose a cause of action and the procedural prerequisites for default judgment are met, the court may grant appropriate relief, including injunctive relief, consistent with the nature of the claim and the relief sought. The court thus rejected the notion that the court must ignore injunctive relief merely because the defendant did not file a Notice of Intention. Instead, the court treated the default procedure as enabling the claimant to obtain the relief that the court can lawfully grant on the basis of the pleadings and the applicable principles.
On the question of whether the injunction should be granted, the court applied the principles governing injunctive relief in defamation. The judge considered whether there were strong reasons to apprehend that the defendant would repeat the defamatory allegations. The court found such reasons on the facts, including the defendant’s conduct in publishing the Post and confirming service, and the nature of the allegations made. The court also considered that, in any event, the statements of claim disclosed a cause of action in the tort of defamation. This meant that the claimants’ pleadings were not merely technical; they disclosed the essential elements necessary to sustain a defamation claim, thereby supporting the grant of injunctive relief.
Accordingly, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from publishing or disseminating the false and defamatory allegations pleaded in each claim. The injunction terms were tailored to the specific addresses and allegations pleaded in OC 496 and OC 497, while using language broad enough to capture republication “by any means whatsoever”. The court’s approach reflects a careful balance: it did not treat default as automatic entitlement to any remedy, but it did hold that injunctive relief is available and warranted where the defamation pleadings support the claim and repetition is credibly apprehended.
What Was the Outcome?
At the end of the hearing on 2 November 2023, the court allowed both applications and entered default judgments against the defendant in OC 496 and OC 497. In each case, judgment was entered with damages to be assessed, and the hearing for assessment of damages was fixed before a Judge of the General Division of the High Court.
Most significantly, the court granted injunctive relief in both matters. In OC 496, the defendant was restrained and an injunction was granted restraining him from publishing or disseminating the defamatory allegations that the claimant acted corruptly and for personal gain by having the Singapore Land Authority give him preferential treatment by felling trees without approval and illegally, and by giving preferential treatment by paying for renovations to 26 Ridout Road or words to the same effect. In OC 497, the injunction was similarly framed but referred to renovations to 31 Ridout Road. The defendant was also ordered to pay costs to be fixed at the assessment of damages hearing.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is important for practitioners because it clarifies the court’s approach under the ROC 2021 to default judgments where a defendant fails to file and serve a Notice of Intention. The judgment confirms that default judgment is not merely a procedural stepping stone to damages; it can also support injunctive relief where the legal and factual basis for such relief is present in the pleadings and the applicable principles are satisfied.
From a civil procedure standpoint, the case provides guidance on how O 6 r 6(5) operates in practice, particularly for defendants served out of jurisdiction. It also underscores the practical consequences of failing to file a Notice of Intention within the prescribed time. For claimants, the decision supports the strategy of seeking not only damages but also injunctive relief in appropriate defamation cases, even where the defendant does not contest the claim.
From a substantive defamation perspective, the case illustrates how courts assess the appropriateness of injunctions in the absence of a defence. The court’s reasoning indicates that repetition can be inferred from the circumstances and the nature of the allegations, and that the court will still consider whether the statements of claim disclose a cause of action in defamation. For defendants, the case serves as a warning that procedural default may lead to substantive restraints on speech and publication, not just monetary liability.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021), in particular O 6 r 6 (Form and service of notice of intention to contest or not contest), including O 6 r 6(5) (judgment in default) and related provisions on forms and procedural steps
Cases Cited
- [2014] SGHC 230
- [2023] SGHC 331
- [2023] SGHC 75
Source Documents
This article analyses [2023] SGHC 331 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.