Syed Suhail v Attorney-General: Personal Liability of Solicitor for Costs in Judicial Review

In Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore considered an application for a personal costs order against Mr. Ravi s/o Madasamy, the plaintiffs' counsel, for filing an unmeritorious originating summons seeking leave for judicial review. The court, presided over by Ang Cheng Hock J, found that the originating summons lacked legal foundation and ordered Mr. Ravi to personally bear the defendant's costs of $10,000, inclusive of disbursements.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Personal costs order made against counsel for the plaintiffs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court ordered counsel Ravi s/o Madasamy to personally pay costs for filing a wholly unmeritorious judicial review application. The application lacked legal foundation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Masoud Rahimi bin MehrzadPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Roslan bin BakarPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Rosman bin AbdullahPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Iskandar bin RahmatPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Ramdhan bin LajisPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Zamri bin Mohd TahirPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Tan Kay YongPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Attorney-GeneralDefendantGovernment AgencyCosts awardedWon
Saminathan SelvarajuPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Datchinamurthy a/l KataiahPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Syed Suhail bin Syed ZinPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Hamzah bin IbrahimPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Gobi a/l AvedianPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Pannir Selvam PranthamanPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Ang Cheng HockJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ravi s/o MadasamyK K Cheng Law LLC
Vishi SundarWongPartnership LLP
Leo Zhen Wei LionelWongPartnership LLP
Tan Chee MengWongPartnership LLP
Deya Shankar DubeyWongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiffs are prisoners at Changi Prison Complex.
  2. All plaintiffs, except one, were convicted of drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
  3. One plaintiff was convicted of murder under the Penal Code.
  4. The plaintiffs had been sentenced to the death penalty.
  5. The defendant’s chambers had requested and received copies of correspondence belonging to some of the plaintiffs from the Singapore Prison Service.
  6. The Court of Appeal observed that there was no legal basis for the SPS to forward copies of the private correspondence of the plaintiffs to the defendant’s chambers without consent or a court order.
  7. The defendant’s chambers had destroyed copies of the correspondence.
  8. The SPS and the defendant’s chambers have had in place a policy that a prisoner’s correspondence will not be sent by the SPS to the defendant’s chambers, unless the prisoner’s consent or an order of court in relation to such disclosure has been obtained.
  9. The defendant’s chambers had written to Mr Ravi to inform him that they would be destroying the plaintiffs’ correspondence that had been disclosed in OS 975.
  10. The plaintiffs were amenable to withdrawing the OS but only on certain conditions.
  11. Mr Ravi expressed his intention to withdraw the OS unconditionally.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 664 of 2021, [2021] SGHC 270

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Court of Appeal issued judgment in Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal.
Originating Summons No 975 of 2020 filed.
Court of Appeal’s judgment in Syed Suhail was issued.
Deputy Attorney-General Hri Kumar Nair filed an affidavit.
Deputy Attorney-General Hri Kumar Nair filed an affidavit.
See Kee Oon J dismissed OS 975.
Plaintiffs filed the OS.
Defendant’s chambers wrote to Mr Ravi.
Mr Ravi replied to the defendant’s chambers.
Wong Partnership LLP wrote to Mr Ravi.
Mr Ravi replied to Wong Partnership.
Wong Partnership replied to Mr Ravi.
Hearing before Ang Cheng Hock J. Mr Ravi informed the court that he wished to withdraw his application.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Personal liability of solicitor for costs
    • Outcome: The court found that the counsel's conduct was unreasonable and led to an unnecessary waste of costs and time, and ordered the counsel to personally bear the costs of the defendant.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Improper conduct
      • Unreasonable conduct
      • Negligent conduct
      • Abuse of process
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] 1 SLR 1277
      • [2005] 3 SLR(R) 529
  2. Judicial Review
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no genuine attempt by the plaintiffs to seek any form of prerogative relief in the OS, and what they sought were in substance “freestanding” declarations under O 53, which are procedurally unsustainable as a matter of law.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Leave to commence judicial review
      • Prerogative relief
      • Declaratory relief
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 4 SLR 1

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the defendant acted ultra vires and unlawfully
  2. Declaration that the SPS acted ultra vires and unlawfully
  3. Prohibitory order against the defendant’s chambers
  4. Prohibitory order against the SPS
  5. Mandatory order for the destruction of copies of correspondence
  6. Damages for breach of confidence
  7. Nominal damages for breach of copyright

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of confidence
  • Breach of copyright

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 1277SingaporeEndorsed a three-step test to guide the exercise of discretion as to when costs should be ordered against counsel personally.
Tan King Hiang v United Engineers (Singapore) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 529SingaporeEndorsed guidelines laid down by the English Court of Appeal in Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205 on how the terms 'improper', 'unreasonable' and 'negligent' may be interpreted.
Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T CorpCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 532SingaporeCited as an example where a personal costs order might be appropriate, specifically where the solicitor advances a wholly disingenuous case or files utterly ill-conceived applications even though the solicitor ought to have known better.
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 89SingaporeReminded counsel that it is their professional responsibility to ensure that all suits and applications filed possess a proper legal basis.
Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 883SingaporeClarified that the SPS may only disclose a prisoner’s correspondence to the defendant’s chambers if either the prisoner had consented or an order of court had been obtained.
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealNo[2021] 1 SLR 159SingaporeAddressed an application to disqualify the entire corps of officers at the defendant’s chambers from acting for the Public Prosecutor in criminal review proceedings.
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General and anotherHigh CourtYes[2021] 4 SLR 698SingaporeAddressed the question of whether the plaintiffs in OS 975 had possible claims for breach of statutory duty.
Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-GeneralUnknownYes[2013] 4 SLR 1SingaporeA party can only seek a declaration under O 53 of the Rules of Court if it has first obtained leave under O 53 r 1 to apply for a prerogative order
Salijah bte Ab Latef v Mohd Irwan bin Abdullah TeoUnknownYes[1995] 3 SLR(R) 233SingaporeDeclarations will not be granted where there is no need for them, even if the court has the requisite jurisdiction to grant them
Legis Point LLC v Tay Choon AiUnknownYes[2018] 3 SLR 1269SingaporeDeclarations will not be granted where there is no need for them, even if the court has the requisite jurisdiction to grant them
Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita and another appealUnknownYes[2018] 1 SLR 1SingaporeA solicitor should not be held to have acted unreasonably simply because he acted for a client who has a bad case, but it would be quite different if a solicitor gives his assistance to proceedings which are an abuse of process

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 59 r 8(1) of the Rules of Court
O 53 rr 1 and 7 of the Rules of Court
O 15 r 16

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of CourtSingapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Prisons Regulations (Cap 247, Rg 2 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
Prisons Act (Cap 247, 2000 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Personal costs order
  • Judicial review
  • Prerogative relief
  • Originating summons
  • Breach of confidence
  • Breach of copyright
  • Ultra vires
  • Prisoners' correspondence
  • Singapore Prison Service
  • Attorney-General
  • Rules of Court
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Penal Code

15.2 Keywords

  • Personal costs order
  • Judicial review
  • Solicitor liability
  • Singapore
  • Attorney-General
  • Prisoners' rights

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs95
Personal liability of solicitor for costs95
Civil Practice75
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility60
Professional Ethics60
Judicial Review40
Administrative Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs
  • Judicial Review
  • Professional Responsibility