Justice Lai Kew Chai

7 February 1941–27 February 2006

Lai Kew Chai was born on 7 February 1941 at  Tanjong Malim in Perak, West Malaysia. He received his early education at the Methodist English School at Tanjong Malim and later, at the Methodist Boys Secondary School in Kuala Lumpur. He obtained his Bachelor of Laws (Hons) degree from the University of Singapore 
in 1966.

After graduation, he commenced practice with Messrs Lee & Lee. He soon made a name for himself as a litigation lawyer, particularly in company, banking and shipping law. In the early part of 1980, he had the rare distinction of appearing as counsel for the respondents before the Privy Council in Malayan Plant (Pte) Ltd v Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd [1980] 2 MLJ 53.

Notwithstanding his busy practice, he was active in the affairs of the Law Society, the Board of Legal Education and as a member of the Military Court of Appeal. He was Vice-President of the Law Society from 1980 to 1981 and the Director of the Post-Graduate Practical Law Course (‘PLC’) for the training of lawyers for admission to the Bar. He served on the Military Court of Appeal from 1977 to July 1981. He was elevated to the Supreme Court Bench in August 1981, thereby becoming the first local law graduate to achieve this singular honour, at the age of 40. Soon after his elevation to the Bench, he became Chairman of the Board of Legal Education (‘the Board’). It was during his tenure as Chairman of the Board that the PLC Manuals that are currently being used by the Board took shape. He took great pains to go through these Manuals personally night after night, for weeks on end with the then Deputy Chairman of the Board and its Director, Richard Ennis, before the Manuals were eventually approved by the Board. His efforts have greatly benefited all our lawyers who have attended the PLC since 1982. He served with great distinction as Chairman of the Board from 1981 to 1993.

Many distinct qualities distinguished Justice Lai from others of his generation. One was love and respect for his parents and his family. Although he came from a reasonably large family, he took great pains to visit his parents in Kuala Lumpur regularly and provided them with material and other comforts until they both passed away. In this respect, Justice Lai was a very filial son. He also took great pride in his wife, Dorothy, and their two children, Stanley and Amy. Although he was not a man prone to sentimentality or an overflow of emotion, the very mention of his wife and children and more recently, his grandchildren, invariably brought a glow of pride and joy to his face. He doted on his family. His family was his life.

Another was that he loved the Bar. His heart was always with the Bar. In 1980, soon after he was elected Vice-President of the Law Society, the government decided, as a matter of policy, to allow foreign lawyers to practise in Singapore. He was then a partner in Messrs Lee & Lee and all eyes in the Council and the profession were on him to see whether he would stand with the Council in opposing the move. To his great credit and no doubt at great personal sacrifice to himself, he stood by the Council. At the annual dinner of the Bar held in July 1980, the then President of the Law Society had Council members like Lai Kew Chai in mind when he spoke these words:

It is seldom that the President makes reference to his own Council at a gathering like this. But today is an exception. May I say that I am extremely proud of the Council. No President could have asked for support and guidance from a better Council in these difficult times.

One distinct feature of his tenure on the Bench was that he took great pains to help younger members of the Bar – particularly when they were up against more experienced and eloquent opponents. Although the younger members of the Bar knew that he was a formidable judge to appear before, they took comfort in the fact that they were before a judge who knew and understood their problems and difficulties. Many younger members of the Bar appreciated his wise counsel in the privacy of his Chambers after a gruelling day before him in court.

It would be evident to anyone who had occasion to discuss the law with him that he read widely and developed (consciously or subconsciously) a philosophy of his own. He gave expression to his philosophy in his utterances on the Bench and in many of his judgments. He was also a lover of law books and took great pride in his acquisition of the latest edition of any particular work or new publication that had just reached the shelves of the bookshops at Chancery Lane in London or other parts of the Commonwealth. In the early years of his practice, he was a regular visitor to the Malayan Law Journal at Malacca Street where he would join Dr Bashir Mallal and his friends for lunch. Such lunches were often graced by High Court judges from Singapore and Malaysia and other legal luminaries.

In addition, he was deeply religious and although he was fully conscious of the fact that religion, law and morals can be separated, he appeared to believe, like a famous former Master of the Rolls, that many of the fundamental principles of our law have been derived from the Christian religion.¹ He was a regular church-goer and participated fully in the activities of the Anglican Church of which he was a Chancellor from 1993 till the date of his death. It can be said that he was a judge who truly divided each day into:

Six hours in sleep

In law’s grave studies six

Four spent in prayer

The rest on Nature fix.²

In a span of some 25 years on the Bench, Justice Lai penned a total of more than 530 judgments, most of which adorn our law reports. Two of the judgments bear mentioning as they show the scope and breadth of his learning.

In Shiffon Creations³ the question before the Court of Appeal was whether the court had jurisdiction to award damages in lieu of specific performance. Justice Lai in delivering the judgment of the court concluded in these words:

Although the authoritative value of Denton v Stewart was severely dented, it has to be recognized (as was expressly noted by Eldon LC) that “in very special cases” equity did award damages. Two points are noteworthy. First, it was only in very exceptional cases that the Court of Chancery had awarded equitable damages. Secondly, although the power to award equitable damages was very occasionally exercised by the Court of Chancery, this jurisdiction did not have sufficient time and opportunity to develop before it was superseded by Lord Cairns’ Act, with the result that its scope was uncertain and indeterminate. That state of case law in equity stood in great contrast to the much wider jurisdiction of equity which was statutorily conferred by Lord Cairns’ Act. In the result, in the absence of the fullest arguments we would reserve this issue for another day. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Finally, it is not possible to end without making reference to the Sumitomo Bank case.⁴ In that case, he was bold enough to discard the well known English case of Lister v Stubbs⁵ and break new ground in words that are typical of his style:

I am persuaded that Lister v Stubbs is wrong and its undesirable and unjust consequences should not be imported and perpetuated as part of our law. … In my view a Court in Singapore when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must reflect the mores and sense of justice of the society which it serves. Unlike Legatt J, who is constrained by the doctrine of binding precedents, I am in a sense greatly relieved that I do not have to labour under such an impediment and am therefore free to administer justice according to law.

In 1994, Lord Templeman in delivering the judgment of the Privy Council in AG of Hong Kong v Reid ⁶ referred to the judgment of Justice Lai in the Sumitomo Bank case in the following words:

The authorities which followed Lister v Stubbs do not cast any new light on that decision. Their Lordships are more impressed with the decision of Lai Kew Chai J in the Sumitomo Bank Case … . After considering in detail all the relevant authorities Lai Kew Chai J determined robustly … that Lister v Stubbs was wrong and that its undesirable and unjust consequences should not be imported and perpetuated as part of the law of Singapore … . [Emphasis added]

The Bar should be proud that from amongst its fold emerged a unique individual who was a filial son, a doting family man, a friend of the Bar, a staunch supporter of legal education and scholarship and above all, a judge respected not only for his learning, aplomb and gravitas, but one who was prepared to determine difficult issues of the day before him ‘robustly’. There in a word, you have the measure of the man.

Dorothy and the children have lost a loving husband and father, the Bar an illustrious son, the Church one of its faithful stalwarts, the State one of its enlightened judicial minds, and the writer a dear old friend. We want Dorothy and the children to know that he will be fondly remembered by 
the Bar.

T P B Menon

Wee Swee Teow & Co

Notes

1   The Influence of Religion on the Law by Lord 
            Denning.

2   Attributed to Lord Coke and reproduced from page 
    142 of The Family Story by Lord Denning.

3   Shiffon Creations (S) Pte Ltd v Tong Lee Co Pte Ltd 
 [1990] SLR 141 at 148.

4   [1993] 1 SLR 735.

5   (1890) 45 Ch D 1.

6   [1994] 1 AC 324.