Nagaenthran v Attorney-General: Personal Costs Orders Against Defence Counsel
The Court of Appeal of Singapore heard Civil Appeal No 61 of 2021 and Criminal Motion No 30 of 2021, both involving Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam and the Attorney-General. The court considered the issue of personal costs orders against Mr. Ravi s/o Madasamy and Ms. L F Violet Netto, the defence counsels, for their conduct in the proceedings. The court found that the counsels had acted improperly, unreasonably, and negligently, leading to unnecessary costs for the Attorney-General’s Chambers. The court ordered Mr. Ravi to pay $15,000 (75%) for CA 61 and $5,000 (75%) for CM 30, and Ms. Netto to pay $15,000 (25%) for CA 61 and $5,000 (25%) for CM 30.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Personal costs orders made against both defence counsels.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal ordered personal costs against defence counsels for abuse of court processes. The counsels advanced unsustainable arguments, frustrating lawful execution.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | L F Violet Netto, Ravi s/o Madasamy |
| Attorney-General | Respondent, Defendant | Government Agency | Costs Awarded | Won | Wong Woon Kwong, Tan Wee Hao, Andre Chong |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Costs Awarded | Won | Wong Woon Kwong, Tan Wee Hao, Andre Chong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| Chao Hick Tin | Senior Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| L F Violet Netto | Independent Practitioner |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | Independent Practitioner |
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Wee Hao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Andre Chong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Court of Appeal dismissed Civil Appeal No 61 of 2021 and Criminal Motion No 30 of 2021 on 29 March 2022.
- The Attorney-General’s Chambers sought personal costs orders against Mr Ravi and Ms Netto.
- Mr Ravi and Ms Netto were the defence counsels for the appellant.
- The court found that Mr Ravi and Ms Netto advanced arguments which were unsustainable.
- The court found that Mr Ravi and Ms Netto acted in such a manner to frustrate the lawful process of execution in abuse of the court’s processes.
- The court found that the proceedings were undertaken when there was no factual basis.
- Mr Ravi and Ms Netto each drip-fed the supposed evidence and arguments.
5. Formal Citations
- Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter, Civil Appeal No 61 of 2021, [2022] SGCA 44
- Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter, , [2022] SGCA 26
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Civil Appeal No 61 of 2021 filed | |
| Criminal Motion No 30 of 2021 filed | |
| Civil Appeal No 61 of 2021 and Criminal Motion No 30 of 2021 dismissed | |
| Attorney-General’s Chambers directed to file written submissions on costs | |
| Attorney-General’s Chambers filed written submissions on costs | |
| Mr Ravi filed submissions on costs | |
| Court directed Ms Netto to confirm submissions filed on her behalf | |
| Ms Netto clarified submissions were filed in Mr Ravi’s personal capacity | |
| Hearing on costs held | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Personal Liability of Solicitor for Costs
- Outcome: The court held that personal costs orders were appropriate against the defence counsels due to their improper, unreasonable, and negligent conduct, which caused unnecessary costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Improper conduct
- Unreasonable conduct
- Negligent conduct
- Wasted costs
- Abuse of court processes
- Abuse of Court Processes
- Outcome: The court found that the proceedings constituted a blatant and egregious abuse of the court's processes.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Drip-feeding evidence
- Delaying tactics
- Filing ill-conceived applications
- Advancing unsustainable arguments
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of costs order
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Criminal Law
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1277 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step test in deciding whether to order costs against a solicitor personally. |
| Ridehalgh v Horsefield | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] Ch 205 | England and Wales | Cited for the principles on ordering costs against a solicitor personally. |
| Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576 | Singapore | Endorsed the three-step test set out in Ridehalgh v Horsefield for ordering costs against a solicitor personally. |
| Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim Betsy and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 220 | Singapore | Endorsed the three-step test set out in Ridehalgh v Horsefield for ordering costs against a solicitor personally. |
| Abdul Kahar bin Othman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1394 | Singapore | Cited for the court's power to order defence counsel to pay costs directly to the Prosecution in criminal proceedings. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 377 | Singapore | Cited for the application of civil principles in criminal cases regarding personal costs orders against counsel. |
| Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 532 | Singapore | Cited for the situation where a solicitor may be regarded as having acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 26 | Singapore | The primary judgment being appealed from, detailing the factual and procedural background of the case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 59 r 8(1)(c) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Personal costs order
- Abuse of court processes
- Improper conduct
- Unreasonable conduct
- Negligent conduct
- Wasted costs
- Drip-feeding evidence
- Lack of factual basis
15.2 Keywords
- Costs
- Solicitor
- Lawyer
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
- Criminal Law
- Civil Law
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Criminal Procedure
- Legal Ethics
- Costs
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Costs
- Abuse of Process