Case Details
- Citation: [2023] SGHC 191
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2023-07-13
- Judges: Kwek Mean Luck J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: The National University of Singapore
- Defendant/Respondent: Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie
- Legal Areas: Courts and Jurisdiction — Vexatious litigants
- Statutes Referenced: Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
- Cases Cited: [2018] SGHC 158, [2022] SGHC 247, [2023] SGHC 191
- Judgment Length: 34 pages, 10,234 words
Summary
In this case, the National University of Singapore (NUS) sought an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) against Ms. Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie, a former NUS student, under Section 73C of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. NUS argued that Ms. Ten had persistently commenced actions or made applications that were totally without merit, following the dismissal of her earlier lawsuit against NUS. The High Court of Singapore, after reviewing the extensive procedural history of the case, granted the ECRO against Ms. Ten, finding that she had indeed persistently brought unmeritorious legal proceedings against NUS.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
Ms. Ten commenced her candidature for a Master of Arts (Architecture) degree at the NUS School of Design and Environment in January 2002. However, NUS later determined that she had failed to comply with certain requirements necessary for the award of the degree and terminated her candidature on 4 September 2006, before she obtained the degree.
On 8 August 2012, Ms. Ten commenced a lawsuit, HC/S 667/2012 ("S 667"), against NUS, seeking for NUS to award her the degree and claiming damages for breach of contract, the tort of misfeasance in public office, the tort of intimidation, and the tort of negligence. On 9 July 2018, the High Court dismissed S 667 (see Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore [2018] SGHC 158).
Following the dismissal of S 667, a series of legal proceedings ensued, which the High Court in the present case examined in detail. NUS subsequently filed the current application, HC/OA 21/2023 ("OA 21"), seeking an ECRO against Ms. Ten under Section 73C of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue in this case was whether the court should grant an ECRO against Ms. Ten under Section 73C of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. This provision allows the court to make an ECRO against a person who has "persistently commenced actions or made applications that are totally without merit".
In considering this issue, the court had to examine the principles governing the granting of an ECRO, as developed in the case law, particularly the English Court of Appeal's decision in Sartipy (aka Hamila Sartipy) v Tigris Industries Inc [2019] 1 WLR 589. The court also had to review the extensive procedural history of the case to determine whether Ms. Ten had indeed persistently brought unmeritorious legal proceedings against NUS.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by outlining the relevant principles from the Sartipy case, as summarized by NUS in its submissions. These principles include: (a) the litigant must have commenced or made at least three actions or applications that are totally without merit; (b) an action or application is "totally without merit" if it is bound to fail and has no rational basis for success; (c) the persistence of the litigant in commencing such applications is to be evaluated based on the litigant's overall conduct; and (d) the court hearing the ECRO application can retrospectively adjudge a previous action or application to be totally without merit.
The court then examined the extensive procedural history of the case, including the dismissal of Ms. Ten's earlier lawsuit (S 667) against NUS, her subsequent applications (OS 25, OSB 3, and RA 316), and the court's findings in those proceedings. The court found that Ms. Ten had repeatedly sought to relitigate the same allegations of perjury by NUS's witnesses, despite these arguments being rejected by the courts.
The court concluded that Ms. Ten's actions and applications were "totally without merit" and that she had persistently commenced such proceedings, thus meeting the requirements for the granting of an ECRO under Section 73C of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
What Was the Outcome?
Based on its analysis, the High Court granted the ECRO sought by NUS against Ms. Ten. The ECRO will prevent Ms. Ten from commencing any further legal proceedings against NUS without the court's permission, thereby curbing her persistent and unmeritorious litigation against the university.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant as it demonstrates the court's willingness to exercise its powers under Section 73C of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to grant an ECRO against a litigant who has persistently brought unmeritorious legal proceedings. The court's detailed examination of the procedural history and its application of the principles from the Sartipy case provide guidance on the factors the court will consider in determining whether to grant an ECRO.
The case is also noteworthy for its emphasis on the finality of court judgments and the limited circumstances in which a litigant can seek to relitigate issues that have already been decided. The court's refusal to entertain Ms. Ten's repeated attempts to challenge the findings in the earlier S 667 judgment underscores the importance of the principle of res judicata and the need to prevent the abuse of court processes.
For legal practitioners, this judgment highlights the court's willingness to use its powers under Section 73C to curb vexatious litigation, which can be a valuable tool in cases where a litigant persistently brings unmeritorious claims. The case also serves as a reminder that the court will not tolerate repeated attempts to relitigate issues that have already been conclusively determined.
Legislation Referenced
Cases Cited
- [2018] SGHC 158 (Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore)
- [2022] SGHC 247
- [2023] SGHC 191 (The National University of Singapore v Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie)
- [2019] 1 WLR 589 (Sartipy (aka Hamila Sartipy) v Tigris Industries Inc)
- [2015] EWHC 2737 (Perry v Brundle)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2023] SGHC 191 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.