Justice Chou Han Teck. who heard my appeal against the refusal of the Asstant Registrar to grant me a discharge from bankruptcy, has given his Grounds for dismissing my appeal.
The Judge says "there are no grounds to support the appellant 's applications".
In my appeal I raised two grounds but it does not appear from the Grounds that the Judge, apart from mentioning them, had given any consideration to them.
The main ground of my appeal was that the creditors, including Goh Chok Tong and S Jayakumar, were not as much interested in recovering any money from me as in keeping me out of the next election to Parliament. That they were using court proceedings for a purpose that the court would not allow. That it was an abuse of the court's process and should be struck out.
It does not appear from the Grounds that the Judge had given any consideration to the evidence which I said pointed to an improper purpose and what this finding is - whether the evidence points to an improper purpose or not.
Instead the Judge says that the case I relied on - a decision of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal [Canada} - for the principle that the court would strike out any poceedings maintained for an improper purpose is irrelevant. It is unfortunate that the Judge does not explain why the case is irrelevant.
On my offer to pay 20%of the debts proved or whatever the court considers just and equitable {the second ground] again regrettably it does not appear from the Grounds that the Judge had given any consideration at all to what in equity should be the extent of my liability to the eight creditors represented by Davinder Singh. SC.
They had obtained judgement against the Workers' Party and A Balakrishnan along with me. The Grounds do no show that the Judge had considered at all whether it is right that I should be kept a brankrupt until I paid the entire judgement or whether equity required that I should be discharged after paying one-third of the judgment and that the eight creditors should be left to purpsue their claim for the balance against the other two judgment debtors.
It does not appear from the Grounds that the Judge had considered whether the bankruptcy proceedings were being pursued oppressively against me - something which the courts in UK have said should be struck down.
The Grounds fail to come to grips with the real issues in my appeal.
Incidentally, Justice Choo was the Judge [he was then Judicial Commissioner] who dismissed my application in 1997 for consolidation of the eight [8] suits brought by six [6] PAP ministers [Lee and Goh among them] and five [5] PAP MPs. the trail Judge who later heard Goh's suit against me said the case should have been consolidated - that there was a good case for consolidation.
Signed
J.B.Jeyeratnam
31st May 2004
Sources and Relevant Links:
Think Centre
J.B.Jeyaretnam - Appeal against Bankruptcy Order on the 19th January 2001. 07 February 2001
Think Centre
J.B.Jeyaretnam Declared A Bankrupt 07 February 2001
Think Centre
J.B.Jeyaretnam Declared A Bankrupt 07 February 2001
J.B.Jeyaretnam - Appeal against Bankruptcy Orderon the 19th January 2001.
Think Centre J.B.Jeyaretnam: Defender of Human Rights 21 November 2003
Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada: Defamation in Singapore: Report to LRWC In the matter of Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam and two Appeals in the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore Gail Davidson and Howard Rubin (August 2001)
