Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan v Public Prosecutor: Personal Costs Order Against Counsel
In Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed the issue of personal costs against Mr. Joseph Chen, the former counsel for the applicant, for filing Criminal Motion No 3 of 2022. The court found that Mr. Chen's conduct fell short of expected standards, as he facilitated the filing of a patently unmeritorious motion. The court ordered Mr. Chen to pay costs of $3,000 to the respondent.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Personal costs order of $3,000 (all-in) imposed on Mr. Joseph Chen, former counsel for the applicant, to be paid to the respondent.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal ordered former counsel Joseph Chen to pay personal costs for filing an unmeritorious criminal motion on behalf of Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Costs Awarded | Won | Senthilkumaran Sabapathy of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sean Teh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mohamed Faizal SC of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan | Applicant | Individual | Motion Dismissed | Lost | Joseph Chen of Independent Practitioner |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Senthilkumaran Sabapathy | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sean Teh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Faizal SC | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Joseph Chen | Independent Practitioner |
4. Facts
- The respondent sought a personal costs order against the applicant's former counsel.
- The applicant's former counsel filed Criminal Motion No 3 of 2022.
- The applicant sought discovery of materials, including her children's medical records.
- The applicant sought leave to adduce a psychiatric report as further evidence.
- The alleged further psychiatric report was not put before the court.
- The applicant claimed she wanted to know if a Newton Hearing could be convened.
- The applicant's former counsel claimed the applicant's impecuniosity prevented her from obtaining the alleged further report.
5. Formal Citations
- Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 3 of 2022, [2022] SGCA 53
- Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan v Public Prosecutor, , [2022] SGCA 38
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Hearing of Criminal Motion No 3 of 2022 | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Mr. Chen informed the court he was agreeable to the issue of a personal costs order being decided without an oral hearing | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Personal Costs Order Against Counsel
- Outcome: The court ordered the applicant's former counsel to pay costs of $3,000 to the respondent.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Improper conduct of counsel
- Unreasonable conduct of counsel
- Negligent conduct of counsel
- Causation of unnecessary costs
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 2 SLR 377
- [2018] 2 SLR 532
- Discovery of Documents
- Outcome: The court found that there was no legal or factual basis to order disclosure of the materials sought by the applicant.
- Category: Procedural
- Adducing Further Evidence
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for leave to adduce further evidence because the alleged further report had not been put before the court.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Discovery of documents
- Leave to adduce further evidence
- Newton Hearing
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 377 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principles in determining whether to make personal costs orders against defence 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 personal costs order may be appropriate, such as advancing a wholly disingenuous case or filing utterly ill-conceived applications. |
| Abdul Kahar bin Othman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | No | [2018] 2 SLR 1394 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the present case, as the counsel in Abdul Kahar had a good faith belief in the merits of the case, which was not the situation in the present case. |
| Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 1169 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that counsel's reasons for taking on a case do not excuse them from their duty to assess the merits before invoking court processes. |
| Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | No | [2022] SGCA 38 | Singapore | The judgment dismissing CM 3 in its entirety, which led to the personal costs order against the applicant's former counsel. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Personal costs order
- Improper conduct
- Unreasonable conduct
- Negligence
- Discovery
- Further evidence
- Newton Hearing
- Impecuniosity
15.2 Keywords
- Personal Costs
- Criminal Motion
- Counsel Negligence
- Singapore Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Costs | 80 |
| Sentencing | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| Duty of Candour | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 50 |
| Professional Negligence | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Criminal Procedure
- Legal Profession