Chee Siok Chin v Attorney-General: Election Petition Dismissal for Failure to Provide Security for Costs

In Chee Siok Chin v Attorney-General, the High Court of Singapore, on 22 June 2006, dismissed Chee Siok Chin's application to declare the results of the General Elections 2006 null and void due to her failure to comply with Rule 13 of the Parliamentary Elections (Application for Avoidance of Election) Rules regarding security for costs. The Attorney-General, as the defendant, successfully applied for the dismissal under Rule 13(4), leading to the dismissal of Chee Siok Chin's application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed Chee Siok Chin's election petition for failing to provide security for costs within the stipulated timeframe, as required by the Parliamentary Elections Act.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralDefendantGovernment AgencyApplication GrantedWon
Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Leong Kwang Ian of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chee Siok ChinPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jeffrey Chan Wah TeckAttorney-General’s Chambers
Leong Kwang IanAttorney-General’s Chambers
M RaviM Ravi & Co

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff, Chee Siok Chin, applied to declare the results of the General Elections 2006 null and void.
  2. The plaintiff failed to provide security for costs within the timeframe stipulated by Rule 13 of the PER.
  3. The defendant, the Attorney-General, applied for the dismissal of the plaintiff's application under Rule 13(4) of the PER.
  4. The plaintiff attempted to furnish security for costs after the timelines stipulated in Rule 13(1).
  5. The defendant argued that the timelines in Rule 13 were mandatory and that the plaintiff's non-compliance warranted dismissal.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chee Siok Chin v Attorney-General, OS 1017/2006, SUM 2419/2006, [2006] SGHC 112

6. Timeline

DateEvent
General Elections held
Plaintiff applied for orders to declare the results of the General Elections 2006 null and void
Defendant applied for the Plaintiff’s application to be dismissed
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Compliance with Election Petition Rules
    • Outcome: The court held that strict compliance with Rule 13 of the Parliamentary Elections (Application for Avoidance of Election) Rules is mandatory, and failure to provide security for costs within the stipulated timeframe results in the dismissal of the election petition.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to provide security for costs within the stipulated timeframe
  2. Mandatory vs. Directory Rules
    • Outcome: The court determined that Rule 13 is mandatory, requiring strict compliance, and that the use of 'shall' indicates a mandatory provision.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of 'shall' in legal rules
      • Consequences of non-compliance with procedural rules

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the results of the General Elections 2006 be declared null and void
  2. Declaration that the ban on podcasting during the period of the General Elections 2006 be declared unconstitutional
  3. Other relief and/or remedies as the court deems fit

9. Cause of Actions

  • Election Petition

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Election Petition

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Dr Shafie bin Abu Bakar v Pegawai Pengurus Pilihan Raya N 26 Bangi (No 2)High CourtYes[2005] 2 MLJ 149MalaysiaCited for the principle that election judges are bound to keep strictly within the letter of the Acts and that statutory requirements of election law must be strictly observed.
Tengku Korish v Mohamed bin JusohHigh CourtYes[1970] 1 MLJ 6MalaysiaCited as an example of a case emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of election judges and the need to adhere strictly to election laws.
Jyoti Basu v Debi GhosalSupreme CourtYesAIR 1982 SC 983IndiaCited for the principle that the right to elect and dispute an election is purely statutory and subject to statutory limitations.
Chong Thain Vun v WatsonHigh CourtYes[1968] 1 MLJ 65MalaysiaCited as the central precedent, holding that failure to comply with the Malaysian equivalent of Rule 13 results in the dismissal of an application to declare an election void because the rule is mandatory.
Devan Nair v Yong Kuan TeikPrivy CouncilYes[1967] 1 MLJ 261; [1967] 2 AC 31MalaysiaCited for the need for a speedy determination of election controversies and the mandatory nature of Rule 16 of the PER (service of notice).
Re Telok Blangah ElectionHigh CourtYes[1980–1981] SLR 509SingaporeCited for applying the holding in Devan Nair v Yong Kuan Teik regarding the legal status of Rule 16 of the PER.
Norbert Choong Kai Chong v Mohamed Idris bin Haji IbrahimHigh CourtYes[1980] 1 MLJ 316MalaysiaCited for the requirement to state the grounds upon which the plaintiff is relying to sustain the relief sought.
Charlee Soh Cheng Hiong v Pengerusi Pilihan Raya Negeri SarawakHigh CourtYes[2002] 261 MLJU 1MalaysiaCited for following Chong Thain Vun v Watson and emphasizing the mandatory requirements of the Election Petition Rules regarding security for costs.
Absalom v GillettEnglish Divisional CourtYes[1995] 1 WLR 128England and WalesCited for the principle that a petition is not competent unless the elected candidate has been made a respondent.
Ahmed v KennedyEnglish Court of AppealYes[2003] 1 WLR 1820England and WalesCited for reaffirming Absalom v Gillett and holding that provisions regarding notice of the petition and security are mandatory.
Ramely bin Mansor v Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya MalaysiaHigh CourtYes[2000] 2 MLJ 500MalaysiaCited for the argument that the plaintiff named the wrong defendant.
Dr Lee Chong Meng v Abdul Rahman bin Hj Abdullah, Returning OfficerHigh CourtYes[2000] 6 MLJ 98MalaysiaCited for the argument that the plaintiff named the wrong defendant.
Sulaiman v Choong Yoon ChongHigh CourtYes[1957] MLJ 170MalaysiaCited for the argument that the action which the Judge takes is entirely discretionary.
Re Rasmachayana Sulistyo; ex parte The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp LtdHigh CourtYes[2005] 1 SLR 483SingaporeCited for the principle that the elusive historical approach of characterising procedural provisions as either directory or mandatory is largely anachronistic today.
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte JeyeanthanEnglish Court of AppealYes[2000] 1 WLR 354England and WalesCited for the principle that the dichotomy between “directory” and “mandatory” provisions is ‘only at most a first step’.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Parliamentary Elections (Application for Avoidance of Election) Rules
Rule 13 of the Parliamentary Elections (Application for Avoidance of Election) Rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218, 2001 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Security for costs
  • Election petition
  • Parliamentary Elections Act
  • Parliamentary Elections (Application for Avoidance of Election) Rules
  • Rule 13
  • Mandatory rule
  • Dismissal of application
  • Timelines
  • General Elections 2006

15.2 Keywords

  • Election petition
  • Security for costs
  • Dismissal
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Parliamentary Elections Act

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Election, Campaign and Political Law80
Civil Procedure70
Administrative Law60
Constitutional Law60
Pleadings40

16. Subjects

  • Election Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Legal Practice and Procedure