NUS v Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie: Extended Civil Restraint Order for Vexatious Litigant

The National University of Singapore (NUS) applied for an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) against Ms. Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie, arguing she persistently commenced actions without merit following the dismissal of her initial suit against NUS. The High Court of Singapore, General Division, granted the ECRO, finding Ms. Ten had indeed persistently filed meritless applications and actions, thereby justifying the restraint order to prevent further abuse of court processes.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Extended Civil Restraint Order Granted

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

NUS seeks an extended civil restraint order against Ms. Ten, who persistently commenced meritless actions. The court granted the order, finding Ms. Ten a vexatious litigant.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
The National University of SingaporeApplicantStatutory BoardApplication GrantedWon
Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-MarieRespondentIndividualApplication DeniedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kwek Mean LuckJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chia Voon JietDrew & Napier LLC
Tay Jia Yi PesdyDrew & Napier LLC
Charlene Wong Su-YiDrew & Napier LLC
Grace Lim Si RuiDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Ms. Ten commenced candidature for a Master of Arts (Architecture) degree in NUS in January 2002.
  2. NUS terminated Ms. Ten's candidature on 4 September 2006.
  3. Ms. Ten commenced HC/S 667/2012 against NUS on 8 August 2012, seeking the award of her degree and damages.
  4. Woo Bih Li J dismissed S 667 on 9 July 2018.
  5. Ms. Ten filed OS 25 on 11 August 2020, seeking an extension of time to appeal against the judgment in S 667.
  6. The Court of Appeal dismissed OS 25 on 30 October 2020.
  7. NUS served a statutory demand on Ms Ten on 27 December 2019.
  8. Ms Ten filed HC/OSB 3/2020 to set aside the statutory demand on 9 January 2020.
  9. OSB 3 was dismissed on 8 December 2020.
  10. Andre Maniam JC dismissed RA 316 on 25 January 2021.
  11. NUS filed a Creditor’s Bankruptcy Application, HC/B 355/2021, against Ms Ten on 8 February 2021.
  12. Ms Ten filed HC/OS 226/2021 to set aside the judgment in S 667 on 10 March 2021.
  13. NUS filed HC/SUM 1613/2021 to strike out OS 226 on 8 April 2021.
  14. Ms Ten filed AD/OA 26/2022 on 16 December 2022.
  15. The Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed OA 26 on 7 February 2023.
  16. NUS commenced OA 21 on 11 January 2023.
  17. Ms Ten filed HC/OC 328/2023 against NUS on 26 May 2023.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The National University of Singapore v Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie, Originating Application No 21 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 191

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Ms. Ten commenced candidature for a Master of Arts (Architecture) degree in NUS.
NUS terminated Ms. Ten's candidature.
Ms. Ten commenced HC/S 667/2012 against NUS.
Woo Bih Li J dismissed S 667.
NUS served a statutory demand on Ms Ten.
Ms Ten filed HC/OSB 3/2020 to set aside the statutory demand.
Ms Ten filed OS 25.
The Court of Appeal dismissed OS 25.
Ms Ten wrote to the court to request for leave to make further arguments in respect of OS 25.
The Court of Appeal informed Ms Ten that it had no jurisdiction to hear further arguments and that its decision to dismiss OS 25 was final.
OSB 3 was dismissed.
Andre Maniam JC dismissed RA 316.
NUS filed a Creditor’s Bankruptcy Application, HC/B 355/2021, against Ms Ten.
Ms Ten wrote to the court to request that Maniam JC’s decision in RA 316 be set aside and for permission to make further arguments in relation to RA 316.
Ms Ten filed HC/OS 226/2021 to set aside the judgment in S 667.
NUS filed HC/SUM 1613/2021 to strike out OS 226.
Ms Ten filed HC/SUM 5255/2021 seeking the recusal of the learned Assistant Registrar.
Ms Ten filed AD/OA 26/2022.
NUS commenced OA 21.
The Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed OA 26.
Ms Ten wrote to the Appellate Division seeking permission to submit written submissions for OA 26 and to make oral arguments.
The Appellate Division directed that Ms Ten was not entitled to present further arguments and that the court did not wish to hear further arguments.
Ms Ten informed the court that following RA 351, she filed a Magistrate’s Complaint against Prof Kong.
Ms Ten commenced a judicial review application against the Attorney-General, HC/OA 603/2023.
Ms Ten filed HC/OC 328/2023 against NUS.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extended Civil Restraint Order
    • Outcome: The court granted the extended civil restraint order against Ms. Ten.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Vexatious Litigation
    • Outcome: The court found that Ms. Ten had persistently commenced actions or made applications that were totally without merit.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Extended Civil Restraint Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Education

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of SingaporeHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 158SingaporeDismissed Ms. Ten's initial suit against NUS, which led to subsequent legal proceedings.
Sartipy (aka Hamila Sartipy) v Tigris Industries IncEnglish Court of AppealYes[2019] 1 WLR 5892England and WalesCited for the principles to determine whether the court should grant an extended civil restraint order.
Perry v BrundleHigh CourtYes[2015] EWHC 2737England and WalesCited for the principle that the Court hearing the application for the ECRO is entitled retrospectively to adjudge an action or application to be totally without merit.
Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of SingaporeHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 247SingaporeDismissed Ms. Ten's appeal against SUM 1613, underscoring that her appeal was totally without merit.
Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and othersN/AYes[2019] 2 WLR 984N/ACited by Ms. Ten as authority for adducing fresh evidence, but distinguished by the court.
Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue ChewN/AYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 673SingaporeCited by Ms. Ten as authority for adducing fresh evidence, but distinguished by the court.
Joseph Clement Louis Arokiasamy v Singapore Airlines Ltd and another matterN/AYes[2020] 5 SLR 869SingaporeCited for the interpretation of 'persistently' in s 73C(1) of the SCJA.
CFC 26 Ltd and another v Brown Shipley & Co Ltd and othersN/AYes[2017] 1 WLR 4589England and WalesCited for the interpretation of 'persistently', finding that it means 'at least three'.
Courtman v LudlamN/AYes[2009] EWHC 2067England and WalesCited for the principle that the civil restraint order regime was intended to provide graduated responses.
Panton and another v Vale of White Horse District Council and anotherN/AYes[2020] EWHC 167 (Ch)England and WalesCited for the principle that appeals can be regarded as one action or application.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore
Penal Code 1871Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Extended Civil Restraint Order
  • Vexatious litigant
  • Persistently commenced actions
  • Totally without merit
  • Fraud upon the court
  • Perjury
  • Res judicata
  • Issue estoppel

15.2 Keywords

  • Extended Civil Restraint Order
  • Vexatious litigant
  • NUS
  • National University of Singapore
  • Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie
  • Civil Litigation
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Vexatious litigants90
Abuse of Process80
Civil Practice75
Judgments and Orders65
Jurisdiction60
Evidence50
Duty of Candour40

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Courts and Jurisdiction