A High Court judge issued default judgments against Lee Hsien Yang over his defamatory allegations against ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan after Lee “has not exercised his right of contesting the claims” of the ministers.

According to the judgment made publicly available on Nov. 27, 2023, Justice Goh Yihan ordered Lee to pay damages to the ministers, with the quantum to be assessed at a separate hearing on a later date.

Goh also granted injunction orders to restrain Lee from publishing or disseminating “the false and defamatory allegations” against both ministers.

Background

On Jul. 23, Lee made several allegations against Shanmugam and Balakrishnan on his personal Facebook account.

The defamatory allegations were made over the ministers' rental of the black and white bungalows at Ridout Road.

In a Facebook post on Jul. 27, Shanmugam said he and Balakrishnan sent lawyer’s letters to Lee, demanding Lee post a public apology and pay damages that would be donated to charity.

Lee responded through his Facebook post on Jul. 29 and asked the ministers to sue him in Britain instead.

The ministers filed separate defamation suits against Lee in the High Court on Aug. 2.

Both ministers are represented by a team of lawyers led by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, who subsequently filed applications to serve the claim papers out of jurisdiction and through a substituted service by Facebook Messenger.

Goh said that while the ministers had served their claim papers on Lee, Lee has not exercised his right to contest the claims.

Why the default judgments were granted

He said this raises the question of whether the court can enter judgment, including ordering an injunction order, against Lee “solely on the basis of his failure” to file a "Notice of Intention", which says whether he wishes to contest the claims.

Goh said that he would also have to consider if, without Lee’s defence, he needs to be satisfied that the ministers made out a prima facie case under their respective claim statements.

After reviewing the Rules of Court, Goh found that for the court to be able to enter a judgment in default of a Notice of Intention, two requirements have to be satisfied.

One, the defendant has not filed one within the prescribed time or filed and served a notice that he does not intend to contest all or some of the claims.

Two, the claimant has filed a “Memorandum of Service”, informing the court that the papers have been served.

For the case, Goh found that both requirements were satisfied.

First, Lee did not file a Notice of Intention within 21 days of service, i.e. by Oct. 6, 2023, and has not filed it by the hearing date on Nov. 2, 2023.

Goh said that while the ministers also did not have to prove that Lee actually saw the documents that were served on him, Lee published a post on his Facebook page on Sep. 16, 2023, confirming that he had been served.

Second, the lawyers filed the Memoranda of Service in both suits on Sep. 21, 2023.

Why the injunction orders were granted

Goh pointed out that other than the “usual consequential orders”, the ministers also asked for “injunctive relief”.

He found that while the court has the power to grant injunctive relief for a default judgment, he has to consider if he should grant one against Lee.

He said the ministers had to show that “there existed facts which made it appropriate” to grant an injunction order, not “solely because they prayed for it and the defendant had not filed a Notice of Intention”.

Goh pointed out that an injunction order could have “potentially draconian effects” on a defendant, and the court needs to be “independently satisfied that it was appropriate" to grant one.

In the case, Goh said he found that “there were strong reasons to apprehend that the defendant will repeat the defamatory allegations”.

He pointed out that Lee had refused to remove his defamatory Facebook post despite a letter of demand on Jul. 27, 2023, continued to draw attention to his post multiple times, and “repeatedly” provided updates on the proceedings.

Besides that, Goh also explained at length why he found Lee’s statements defamatory and “sufficient to support“ an injunction order.

Goh also pointed out in the judgment that a defendant is not “without recourse” if a default judgment is entered against him but “can apply to the court to set aside a default judgment”.

Top image via MCI & Overseas Singaporean Youtube Channels