Justice Andrew Phang, in delivering the written grounds of the court's July 31 decision, also explained why it dismissed Dr Chee's application to waive the $10,000 security deposit that is required when appeals are mounted.

The decision by Justices Phang, V.K. Rajah and Woo Bih Li, laid out in a 57-page document, noted that all rules and principles, whether procedural or substantive, must be observed. This is because they provide the structure without which decisions cannot be arrived at in a 'just, fair and objective manner'.

As Justice Phang noted: 'They apply to all litigants concerned, regardless of their socio-economic or even political status.'

Dr Chee, the Singapore Democratic Party chief, and his sister Chee Siok Chin were found guilty by a High Court of defaming Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in their party newsletter.

The articles, published in February last year, centred on the National Kidney Foundation saga and drew parallels between how the charity and the Government were run.

Among other comments, it cited 'similarities' between the two, and made references to a lack of transparency, authoritarian control, and using defamation suits and the media to suppress information.

The judgment against the Chees was made on Sept 12 last year. They had one month to file an appeal, but had not done so by Oct 12.

Dr Chee filed his appeal only on May 8 this year, some seven months after the deadline. Justice Phang described the delay as 'unprecedented' and said no satisfactory reasons were given by Dr Chee for the delay.

In his defence, Dr Chee had said he was tied up with other cases in November and January. He was also in jail for five weeks after opting not to pay a fine for speaking in public without a permit.

As for his bid to get a waiver of the security deposit, he had written to Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, saying he and his sister could not afford it.

In their grounds of decision, the three judges noted that filing an appeal was a relatively simple procedure.

They said Dr Chee 'failed to satisfactorily explain why he did absolutely nothing for close to seven months'. This was despite 'objective evidence' which showed he had decided to appeal prior to the expiry date.

They added that if the losing party 'drags its heels or is otherwise lackadaisical about its right to appeal, then it cannot legitimately ask the court for an extension of time to appeal'.

Dr Chee also failed to explain why he and Ms Chee walked out on the High Court proceedings on Sept12 last year before the judge ruled on an application he made.

'This is a serious abuse of process which cannot be lightly papered over. This would not be acceptable conduct even in a non-legal context...' Justice Phang said.

Dr Chee's argument, which included allegations of bias on the part of the judge, 'were not only irrelevant and misconceived, but also lacked any merit'.

Dr Chee also sought to obtain a decision in his favour without giving the other side the right to respond to his application.

As for the matter of the security deposit, given that Dr Chee 'cannot even satisfy the court' that he had good enough reasons for it to grant him an extension of time to file an appeal, the issue 'becomes moot'.