©TR Emeritus (Used by permission)
As published in TR Emeritus on 2 Nov 2012.
In a historic decision on the Hougang by–election case, Justice Pillai of The High Court has ruled that no order of cost will be levied against applicant Mdm Vellama, as she has no private interest in her Constitutional Challenge. Justice Pillai granted the Protective Cost Order in favor of Mdm Vellama in this case. Mdm Vellama has earlier made an application to challenge the Constitution in the interest of the public through her counsel, Mr M Ravi.
Effectively, Justice Pillai denied AG’s claim for legal costs from Mdm Vellama. He ruled that no costs will be paid by either party of the Hougang by–election case.
AG had earlier sought $10,000 in legal costs from Hougang resident Mdm Vellama in early Oct after she lost the case.
In a media release today (2 Nov), the Court said while costs are generally awarded to the successful party, public interest considerations are relevant 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 consideration of 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.
While Justice Pillai maintained that these were “unusual circumstances”, his ruling did hold that “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”.
On 2 Mar, Mdm Vellama filed a High Court application 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.
In Jul, Justice Pillai dismissed AG’s attempts to strike out the Hougang by–election case and scheduled it to be heard in an open court on 16 Jul.
Even though Judge Pillai eventually dismissed the case in Aug (‘Application for Judicial Review on Prime Minister’s discretionary powers to call by–election dismissed‘), saying that according to the Constitution the prime minister has the final say to call or not to call a by–election when a Parliamentary seat is vacant, it is believed that Mdm Vellama’s High Court application may have expedited PM Lee’s call for a by–election in Hougang in May this year.