Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Independence of judges?

Some persons feel that you can never win a lawsuit against the government since the judges are appointed by the government. However, if you read previous postings, you will see instances where the government has paid compensation for its wrongful acts.

In addition, Singapore laws are drafted to protect the independence of judges. They take an oath to decide without fear or favour. In addition, the highest judges (those in the Supreme Court) have their independence protected by the Constitution (which is Singapore's highest law).

Under the Constitution, a judge cannot be removed except by a cumbersome procedure where a high powered panel of judges comes to the conclusion that the particular judge was guilty of misconduct. Furthermore, a judge's terms of appointment cannot be altered to his disadvantage. This means that a judge's salary cannot be cut just because he has decided a case against the Singapore government.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Extra strokes of cane, Dickson Tan

In 2007 and 2008, the most interesting lawsuit against the government was by Dickson Tan, a teenager who was sentenced to jail and 5 strokes of the cane. By mistake, he was given 8 strokes of the cane. This was due to errors by the Subordinate Courts and the Prisons Department.

The extra strokes constituted battery, which is a wrong (or in legal jargon, a tort) where physical force in inflicted on another person. The government, like any other person, much act within the limits of the law. Unless they can point to a statute or case law that allows them to carry out a otherwise illegal act, they can be sued by anyone who is harmed by their act.

Back to Dickson Tan. He started a lawsuit against the government. He wanted a six figure sum as compensation. However, (in my opinion) it is difficult to justify such a large amount for 3 strokes especially since he was already subject to caning and if no permanent harm was inflicted (Not sure it the last part about harm is accurate since caning of adults leaves permanent scars when the skin is broken). Finally, both parties agreed to mediation by a retired High Court judge. Mediation is a process where an independent party tries to persuade both parties to settle their dispute without having a judge decide who is right and wrong. Part of the mediation settlement might include the payment of some compensation, an apology, etc. In this case, however, the terms of the settlement were kept confidential.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

cases - suit against Land Transport Authority

The Land Transport Authority had been facing a problem of inconsiderate cyclists endangering pedestrians by riding at high speed along pedestrian overhead bridges. To curb the problem, it installed cycling barriers to force such cyclists to dismount.

Unfortunately, Mr Koh Liep Hang, who was riding along an overhead bridge at Tampines one night, crashed into the barrier and became paralysed from the waist down. He sued the Land Transport Authority and its contractor who had just installed the barrier but had failed to put up warning signs or ensure adequate notice of the barrier. Later, he dropped the suit against the LTA but proceeded against the contractor. The contractor's insurer later paid $800,000 as damages.


Monday, March 16, 2009

Cases of suits against government

A motorcyclist, Mr Selvanaikam Mathalamuthu, was severely injured at paralysed at the Woodlands Checkpoint abou a year ago. A metal gate under Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) control had suddenly swung open and knocked him off his motorcycle.

The government agreed to pay 70% of his damages which came to $266,000. It should be noted that large personal injury awards in Singapore are no reason to celebrate. Often, the large amounts are needed to pay for medicine and nursing care for the rest of one's life. On the other hand, I personally know of a Singaporean who made over $700,000 suing a US company in a US court for his injuries incurred in an aircrash in Indonesia. He is mobile and seems to be living a normal life.


Monday, March 9, 2009

Suit against Mindef by NS man

A young national serviceman, Jeremy Tan, who was found at the bottom of a block of flats in an army camp won a lawsuit against the Ministry of Defence (Mindef). An investigation failed to reveal the cause of his fall. As a result of this fall, he became unconcious and remains in a coma since the August 2005 incident.

The lawsuit concerned the interpreation of words in certain subsidiary legislation. The SAF (Pensions) Regulations state that a member of the SAF - a regular, a full-time NSman, an operationally ready NSman or volunteer - has the right to a payout for disabilities resulting from 'an injury received in and which is attributable to service'. The issue here case was over the phrase 'attributable to service' and its application to the case. The judge, Justice Tay Yong Kwong, found that the case came within the Regulations. The Regulations would cover anyone on standby and the plaintiff was also on 24 hour duty. Since Mindef lost this proceeding, the next stage would be for the amount of payment to be assessed by the court.

Legal costs against Mindef for all proceedings including a 4 day trial were set at $33,000. Lawyer for the plaintiff was Lau Teik Soon, a former PAP member of parliament who after a long career as a university lecturer qualified as a lawyer.

Many legal proceedings, like this one, are divided into 2 parts - with the court deciding on liability in the first part, and then quantum in the second part. "Liability" refers to whether on the facts and the law, the defendant is responsible to the Plaintiff for breach of contract, negligence, etc. If liability is found, then the court moves to the next stage to determine the amount of compensation (or quantum) that can be claimed.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Land acquisition case - Jin Long Si Temple case


The case of Eng Foong Ho v Attorney-General was an interesting case involving the government acquisition of a temple which was near the Bartley Road MRT station. The challenge against this acquisition was not made on the basis of the compensation paid but rather on constitutional grounds.

The appellants in the appeal to the Court of Appeal were devotees at the above named temple. They were trying to challenge the acquisition using Article 12 of the Constitution which deals with equal protection before the law. Their main argument is that the temple was not treated equally with other religious buildings in the vicinity in that the latter buildings were not acquired by the government.

The High Court had dismissed the claim on various grounds including the fact that the appellants had lacked locus standi (legal standing, a concept used to prevent busybodies with no connection to a matter from starting lawsuits against the government or any other defendant).

The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence which showed that there were important planning considerations for the acquisition of the temple but not the other buildings, such as the fact that the temple land touched the MRT station land and both could easily be amalgamated for higher development potential.

Although the appellants lost their case, the Attorney-General, representing the government was only entitled to half the legal costs incurred in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal as the government had lost on some issues. This was a departure from the normal rule that the loser pays the winner's legal costs - see for example, a previous posting on this blog
-

Monday, January 19, 2009 :

Serious injury to schoolboy



Saturday, January 31, 2009

Administrative law - licenses, permits, etc

For most laymen, the main area for suing the Singapore government is for negligence or carelessness. For example, if the stairwell from the carpark of a government building was not properly lighted and you fell, then you might claim that the government was negligent and therefore liable for your injuries.

However, there is also another area which is fast developing - the area of administrative law. Where the government has made administrative decisions concerning matters such as revoking your public entertainment license or has not allowed your ship to be based in the Singapore port areas, then you might be able to challenge that decision. A recent administrative law (but overlapping with constitutional law) was a challenge to the government's acquisition of a temple near a proposed MRT station.

We will explore more of this area in later posts.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Suing the Singapore government - important statute

Anyone considering suing the Singapore government should read carefully the Government Proceedings Act.

This Act states clearly the areas in which the government has immunity. In other areas, the government is liable for negligence just like any other party would be.

If you sue the government where it has immunity, your lawsuit is certain to be dismissed. The end result is that you will have to pay legal costs of the government. Legal costs due to any winning party is assessed by the court based on factors like the amount of work done (such as conversations with clients, research, perusing documents, attending court, etc), the complexity of the matter and whether work was done on an urgent basis. As a previous case involving a schoolboy injured in school who lost his lawsuit against the school shows, the Attorney-General's Chambers is not in any way reluctant to claim legal costs when they win.

A later post will examine the areas of immunity for the Singapore government.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Serious injury to schoolboy

In May 2008, there was a newspaper story about a mother who sued a government school in relation to serious injuries suffered by her son when he fell in school. Medical expenses were more than $10,000 but the school's insurance policy only covered $1,000 of expenses.

After a court hearing, the court ruled that the school was not to blame. As regards legal fees, in Singapore, the usual rule is that the loser pays the winner's legal fees. The judge assessed the legal fees due to the government as over $8,000. The government's lawyer, the Attorney-General's Chambers, stated that it expected the mother to pay in full although they were willing to waive any interest and to allow instalment payments.

Moral of the story - sue only if you can prove that the government department was careless in some way. No private or government school no matter how good can guarantee that your child will never be injured - or maybe it can - if it attached 10 bodyguards to your kid at any one time.

Lawsuits against Singapore government over past 3 years

The newspapers reported that in the past 3 years there were 241 public liabilty lawsuits against Singapore government departments that were handled by the Attorney-General's chambers.

The Attorney-General's Chambers headed by Prof Walter Woon, is the government's lawyer. They will only handle claims of more than $750. Claims below this amount are handled by the department itself.

"Public liability lawsuits" probably refers to cases where there was alleged negligence by the relevant department, for example, if due to poor maintenance of the government building, someone who entered it was injured.

In Parliament, it was disclosed that of the 241 lawsuits mentioned over, 206 were settled out of court. Of the remainder, 35 went to court, out of which, there was payment in 28 cases. The report did not state how much was paid in total to claimants. We await the official parliamentary reports to show if this was discussed in parliament.

Aim and introduction

Can the Singapore government be sued, and for what?

Some people had the idea that the government was immune from legal proceedings but recent events like the publicity over the Dickson Tan case have now shown otherwise.


This blog will examine this issue and report on events relating to lawsuits against the Singapore government.




DISCLAIMER - This blog is not intended to offer legal advice. Readers are advised to consult their lawyers where necessary.