- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]AG appeals against Justice Pillai’s historic ruling[/h]
November 7th, 2012 |
Author: Editorial
The Honourable Justice Philip Pillai
The Attorney-General (AG) has appealed against the High Court’s decision to
reject its claim for legal costs in the Hougang by-election case.
In a historic decision on the case, Justice Pillai of The High Court ruled on
1 Nov that no order of cost will be levied against applicant Mdm Vellama, as she
has no private interest in her Constitutional Challenge.
Mdm Vellama, a Hougang resident, filed a High Court application earlier this
year in Mar seeking to have the Court reviewed the Constitution and declared
that Prime Minister Lee does not have “unfettered discretion” in deciding
whether and when to call a by-election after the Hougang seat became vacant.
When she lost her case in Aug, AG then asked for $10,000 in legal costs from
her in early Oct. Justice Pillai’s Nov 1 ruling effectively denied AG’s claim
for legal costs from her.
In the ruling, Justice Pillai said that while costs are generally awarded to
the successful party, public interest considerations must be taken into account
in this case.
It said the court found that the “constitutional questions raised were of
general public importance, as reflected in extensive debates by MPs both within
Parliament and in the media, among constitutional law academics and on the
internet and print media.”
Justice Pillai’s decision sets a new precedent in Singapore’s jurisprudence
to protect litigants from costs in constitutional challenges in public interest.
In his ruling, Justice Pillai determined that Mdm Vellama had not challenged the
election laws based on her own interest but in the interest of the public.
He said, “Where a matter raises a legal question of genuine public concern,
it may be inappropriate to make a cost order against the applicant even where
the judicial review is unsuccessful”.
But now, AG is attempting to overturn Justice Pillai’s historic ruling. It
said that its objective in appealing is to give the Supreme Court the
opportunity to consider and clarify this issue of public importance.
AG had sought costs as substantial public resources had been incurred in the
hearing of the case which it said was “entirely misconceived” in the first
place.
If AG succeeds in overturning Justice Pillai’s ruling, that means in future,
private citizens will be less likely to file any constitutional challenges in
the public interest on laws which may be deemed unfairly followed by the
establishment, since the citizen may end up paying substantive costs should he
lose in his application.
.
Join our TRE facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/TREmeritus
The Honourable Justice Philip Pillai
The Attorney-General (AG) has appealed against the High Court’s decision to
reject its claim for legal costs in the Hougang by-election case.
In a historic decision on the case, Justice Pillai of The High Court ruled on
1 Nov that no order of cost will be levied against applicant Mdm Vellama, as she
has no private interest in her Constitutional Challenge.
Mdm Vellama, a Hougang resident, filed a High Court application earlier this
year in Mar seeking to have the Court reviewed the Constitution and declared
that Prime Minister Lee does not have “unfettered discretion” in deciding
whether and when to call a by-election after the Hougang seat became vacant.
When she lost her case in Aug, AG then asked for $10,000 in legal costs from
her in early Oct. Justice Pillai’s Nov 1 ruling effectively denied AG’s claim
for legal costs from her.
In the ruling, Justice Pillai said that while costs are generally awarded to
the successful party, public interest considerations must be taken into account
in this case.
It said the court found that the “constitutional questions raised were of
general public importance, as reflected in extensive debates by MPs both within
Parliament and in the media, among constitutional law academics and on the
internet and print media.”
Justice Pillai’s decision sets a new precedent in Singapore’s jurisprudence
to protect litigants from costs in constitutional challenges in public interest.
In his ruling, Justice Pillai determined that Mdm Vellama had not challenged the
election laws based on her own interest but in the interest of the public.
He said, “Where a matter raises a legal question of genuine public concern,
it may be inappropriate to make a cost order against the applicant even where
the judicial review is unsuccessful”.
But now, AG is attempting to overturn Justice Pillai’s historic ruling. It
said that its objective in appealing is to give the Supreme Court the
opportunity to consider and clarify this issue of public importance.
AG had sought costs as substantial public resources had been incurred in the
hearing of the case which it said was “entirely misconceived” in the first
place.
If AG succeeds in overturning Justice Pillai’s ruling, that means in future,
private citizens will be less likely to file any constitutional challenges in
the public interest on laws which may be deemed unfairly followed by the
establishment, since the citizen may end up paying substantive costs should he
lose in his application.
.
Join our TRE facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/TREmeritus
My above comment on TRE was posted yesterday, 8th November! And I NEVER submitted the article to them for publishing!
