At a closed-door hearing today (14 Nov), the High Court has dismissed the Attorney-General’s (AG) application to appeal in the Court of Appeal against a judge’s decision to exempt Mdm Vellama from paying 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 (‘Hougang by-election case: Historic decision by Justice Pillai‘).
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. 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”.
AG was not happy and later filed an application attempting to overturn Justice Pillai’s historic ruling (‘AG appeals against 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. It also said that it 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.
However, at the closed-door hearing today, AG’s application has been dismissed. It did not give any comments to the media but confirmed that its application was not granted.
Hence, this means that in future, a private citizen can file constitutional challenges in the public interest on laws which may be deemed unfairly followed by the establishment without fear of paying substantive costs even if he loses in his application.
Source : http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/11/1...eal-against-justice-pillai’s-historic-ruling/
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 (‘Hougang by-election case: Historic decision by Justice Pillai‘).
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. 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”.
AG was not happy and later filed an application attempting to overturn Justice Pillai’s historic ruling (‘AG appeals against 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. It also said that it 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.
However, at the closed-door hearing today, AG’s application has been dismissed. It did not give any comments to the media but confirmed that its application was not granted.
Hence, this means that in future, a private citizen can file constitutional challenges in the public interest on laws which may be deemed unfairly followed by the establishment without fear of paying substantive costs even if he loses in his application.
Source : http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/11/1...eal-against-justice-pillai’s-historic-ruling/
