FRANK LEE v INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH & 9 Ors

Facts

Frank Lee was warded at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) on three occasions, the first after his arrest in July 2024 for wrongfully confining Phyllis, the seventh defendant. After discontinuing an earlier suit, he filed Originating Claim No 324 of 2026 against IMH, the Ministry of Health, the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Health, the Attorney-General and four individuals. He later withdrew against the Attorney-General's Chambers.

His 135-page statement of claim, which attached his affidavit titled "The Truth About Psychiatry", expressly sought no compensation. It asked for an injunction barring IMH from ever confining anyone again and a declaration setting out the truth of what was done to him and Phyllis. His case rested on assertions that there is no proof the human mind or mental disorders exist, that psychiatry is a hoax and that psychiatrists are not doctors. IMH and the Government Defendants applied to strike out the claim. Andre Maniam J also heard the claimant's injunction application, his appeal against a registrar's case management decisions (RA 104) and two applications for permission to bring contempt proceedings against an IMH assistant director and three of IMH's lawyers.

Issues

1. Whether the claim for an injunction against IMH was legally and factually unsustainable
2. Whether the claim for a declaration disclosed any reasonable cause of action
3. Whether suing the other defendants was an abuse of process
4. Whether the claimant's appeal and contempt applications had any basis

Holding

The court allowed the striking-out applications, struck out the statement of claim and dismissed the action. It also dismissed the injunction application, RA 104 and both contempt applications, and ordered the claimant to pay IMH costs of $47,000 and the Government Defendants costs of $27,000, all in.

Reasoning

The burden lay on the claimant to prove that IMH acted unlawfully, not on IMH to prove that minds exist. In any event, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2008 and other statutes, including the Mental Capacity Act 2008, the Penal Code 1871 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973, presuppose the human mind and mental disorders, and the Court of Appeal in Roszaidi bin Osman v PP [2022] SGCA 75 relied on psychiatric evidence of an abnormality of mind. His own pleadings describing fear, instability and emotions were also inconsistent with his theory. The injunction would forbid IMH from doing what the Act permits, including detaining people where needed for their or others' safety, and was contrary to law and the public interest.

A declaration requires a real controversy and standing, as stated in Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112. A disagreement about what is true is not enough, and IMH had done nothing directly to Phyllis. New claims against the Ministry of Health raised only in submissions were refused as unsustainable amendments.

The statement of claim sought relief only against IMH. The claimant admitted he sued the ministers, the Attorney-General and others to get their attention, and offered to drop the Attorney-General if he emailed proof that he had read the pleading. That was not a legitimate purpose and was an abuse of process.

RA 104 was academic, partly out of time and without merit, and its admitted true purpose of branding the registrar a criminal was a shocking abuse. The contempt applications failed because the Attorney-General had not consented, as the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 requires, and there was no prima facie contempt in the affidavit or submissions complained of.

From the judgment