Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Lee Hsien Yang

Mr Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan (HC/OC 496/2023) and Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (HC/OC 497/2023) each sued Mr Lee Hsien Yang for defamation over a Facebook post he published on his page at around 7.10pm on 23 July 2023. Among other things, the post said that two ministers had leased state-owned mansions from the agency one of them controls, felling trees and getting state-sponsored renovations. The claimants pleaded that the words meant they had acted corruptly and for personal gain by having the Singapore Land Authority give them preferential treatment over 26 and 31 Ridout Road.

With the court's permission, the claim papers were served out of Singapore by Facebook messenger on 15 September 2023, and the defendant posted early the next day confirming he had been served. He did not file a Notice of Intention to Contest or Not Contest within the 21 days allowed, that is by 6 October 2023, and had still not done so at the hearing. The claimants applied for judgment in default, including an injunction against further publication. The defendant was absent and unrepresented.

1. Whether the requirements for judgment in default of a Notice of Intention under O 6 r 6(5) of the Rules of Court 2021 were met
2. Whether the court can grant an injunction in a judgment in default of a Notice of Intention under the Rules of Court 2021
3. Whether an injunction should be granted on the facts

The default requirements were met: the defendant was served out of Singapore on 15 September 2023, filed no notice within 21 days, and the claimants' solicitors filed memoranda of service on 21 September 2023. The evidence also showed he had actually seen the documents.

Under the old 2014 Rules, default judgment on appearance was confined to set categories of claim, so a claimant seeking an injunction had to wait for default of defence and show the statement of claim justified the relief. The 2021 Rules dropped those categories, and O 6 r 6(5) read with O 2 r 4 lets a claimant seek default judgment for all types of claims, including injunctions. The claimant may proceed as if the statement of claim is made out, while the defendant can still apply to set the judgment aside.

Because an injunction can have draconian effects, the court must still be independently satisfied that one is appropriate. Following Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling [2014] SGHC 230, the test is whether there is reason to apprehend repetition. Here the defendant refused a letter of demand dated 27 July 2023 to remove the post, which remained available, and he kept drawing readers' attention to it and to the proceedings in later posts. There were strong reasons to apprehend repetition.

Even if a cause of action had to be shown, the unchallenged pleadings established defamation: an ordinary reasonable reader aware of the reported Ridout Road leases would understand the words to impute corrupt conduct for personal gain; the unnamed "two ministers" sufficiently referred to the claimants; and the post had 2,705 reactions, 478 comments and 435 shares as at 2.53pm on 2 August 2023.

The court allowed the applications and entered judgment in default in both claims, with damages to be assessed before a High Court judge and costs to be fixed at that hearing. It granted injunctions restraining the defendant from publishing or disseminating the allegations that each claimant acted corruptly and for personal gain over the felling of trees and renovations at 26 and 31 Ridout Road respectively, or words to the same effect.