Background
The Attorney-General sought orders restricting civil litigation by Ng Kai Hoe Raymond and Iris Koh Hsiao Pei, who are married and had instituted numerous proceedings individually or together. The application relied principally on unsuccessful litigation concerning the Health Sciences Authority, a defamation claim against Calvin Cheng, an action against the National University of Singapore and, as to Ng, a defamation claim against Wong Peng Kong.
The Attorney-General primarily sought vexatious-litigant orders under s 74 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969. Alternatively, the Attorney-General sought two-year general civil restraint orders under s 73D. Ng and Koh denied satisfying the statutory tests and argued that the restrictions would be disproportionate, particularly because they had conducted proceedings as self-represented litigants.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court made a vexatious-litigant order against Ng. It found that he had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious legal proceedings without reasonable grounds, identifying four actions and seven applications that were substantively unmeritorious. The court also found that some proceedings served collateral purposes and that Ng’s conduct showed a pattern of using litigation as a preferred response to conflict. Ng may neither commence civil proceedings nor continue civil proceedings instituted before the order without permission from the General Division of the High Court.
The court declined to declare Koh a vexatious litigant because the Attorney-General had not established that she acted habitually, although it found persistence and identified two actions and seven applications brought without reasonable grounds. It instead imposed a general civil restraint order under s 73D, finding that Koh had persisted in proceedings that were totally without merit and employed a scattergun approach for which an extended order tied to particular subject matter would be insufficient. For two years, Koh must obtain permission before commencing any new civil action or application, but she may continue existing proceedings and make further applications within them. The court made no order as to costs.
Key Takeaways
- A vexatious-litigant order under s 74 requires proceedings to have been instituted habitually and persistently, without reasonable grounds, and vexatiously; there is no fixed minimum number of proceedings.
- Applications within an action may count separately when assessing persistence and whether litigation was brought without reasonable grounds or was totally without merit.
- A general civil restraint order may be appropriate where meritless litigation concerns different parties and subject matters, making a narrower, subject-specific extended restraint order insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the different thresholds and consequences of a vexatious-litigant order and a general civil restraint order under Singapore law. It also shows that courts must assess respondents individually, even when they litigate together, and may calibrate restrictions according to each person’s demonstrated pattern of conduct.
The restrictions do not eliminate access to the courts. They impose a permission requirement that allows the High Court to screen proposed proceedings—and, for Ng, existing civil proceedings—for prima facie merit and procedural propriety while protecting opposing parties and the judicial process.