- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
HE Hougang resident who sought a High Court declaration on the calling of by-elections will not have to pay costs for her failed bid.
The questions raised in Madam Vellama Marie Muthu's application "concerned public law issues of general importance", said Justice Philip Pillai in a written judgement dated November 1.
The part-time cleaner also did not have a private interest in raising the issue of how seats vacated by Members of Parliament are filled, he added. Madam Vellama had asked the court to declare that the Prime Minister does not have "unfettered discretion" in deciding whether and when to call by-elections after former Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong vacated his seat in February.
Even though Madam Vellama failed in her bid, Justice Pillai noted that where legal questions of "genuine public concern" are raised, "it may be inappropriate to make a costs order against the applicant even where the judicial review is wholly unsuccessful".
The Attorney-General's Chambers had earlier sought costs against Madam Vellama based on the legal principle that the winning party is generally entitled to costs.
Justice Pillai said the importance of the public law issues raised by Madam Vellama was underscored by extensive debates among MPs both within Parliament and in the media, among constitutional law academics and among the public on online and print media.
The questions raised in Madam Vellama Marie Muthu's application "concerned public law issues of general importance", said Justice Philip Pillai in a written judgement dated November 1.
The part-time cleaner also did not have a private interest in raising the issue of how seats vacated by Members of Parliament are filled, he added. Madam Vellama had asked the court to declare that the Prime Minister does not have "unfettered discretion" in deciding whether and when to call by-elections after former Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong vacated his seat in February.
Even though Madam Vellama failed in her bid, Justice Pillai noted that where legal questions of "genuine public concern" are raised, "it may be inappropriate to make a costs order against the applicant even where the judicial review is wholly unsuccessful".
The Attorney-General's Chambers had earlier sought costs against Madam Vellama based on the legal principle that the winning party is generally entitled to costs.
Justice Pillai said the importance of the public law issues raised by Madam Vellama was underscored by extensive debates among MPs both within Parliament and in the media, among constitutional law academics and among the public on online and print media.