Syed Suhail v Attorney-General: Costs for Unreasonable Applications

The High Court of Singapore heard the matter of Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General regarding costs arising from three applications: Summons No 4462/2021, Summons No 4680/2021, and Originating Summons No 825 of 2021. The plaintiffs, inmates of Changi Prison, alleged racial discrimination in their drug trafficking prosecutions. The court dismissed the applications and ordered Mr. Ravi and Mr. Cheng, the plaintiffs' counsels, to personally bear the costs fixed at $20,000 due to their unreasonable and improper conduct.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Costs of the three applications, fixed at $20,000, are to be borne personally by Mr Cheng and Mr Ravi jointly and severally.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court ordered counsels Ravi and Cheng to personally bear costs for filing unmeritorious applications in a case alleging racial discrimination.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Roslan bin BakarPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Rosman bin AbdullahPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Ramdhan bin LajisPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Jumaat bin Mohamed SayedPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Mohammad Reduan bin MustaffarPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Muhammad Salleh bin HamidPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Zamri bin Mohd TahirPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Attorney-GeneralDefendantGovernment AgencyCosts awardedWon
Tai Wei Shyong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ting Yue Xin Victoria of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ng Yong Kiat Francis of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lim Siew Mei Regina of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Masoud Rahimi bin MerzadPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Moad Fadzir bin MustaffaPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Ravi s/o MadasamyOtherIndividualCosts to be borne personallyLost
Syed Suhail bin Syed ZinPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Hamzah bin IbrahimPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Cheng Kim KuanOtherIndividualCosts to be borne personallyLost
Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd ShariffPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Abdul Rahim Bin ShapieePlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Nazeri bin LajimPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Norasharee Bin GousPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Fazali Bin MohamedPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost
Rahmat Bin KarimonPlaintiffIndividualCosts to be borne by counselLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ravi s/o MadasamyK K Cheng Law LLC
Cheng Kim KuanK K Cheng Law LLC
Tai Wei ShyongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Ting Yue Xin VictoriaAttorney-General’s Chambers
Ng Yong Kiat FrancisAttorney-General’s Chambers
Lim Siew Mei ReginaAttorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

  1. Seventeen inmates of Changi Prison, convicted of drug trafficking, filed OS 825/2021 alleging racial discrimination.
  2. Sum 4462/2021 sought to introduce oral evidence from Mr. Zuhairi regarding alleged discriminatory practices by the CNB.
  3. Sum 4680/2021 alleged that the AG breached the PCR by filing Ms. Lim’s Affidavit.
  4. Mr. Ravi chose not to rely on Mr Zuhairi’s evidence when OS 825/2021 was filed.
  5. Mr. Zuhairi had declined to depose an affidavit in support of OS 825/2021.
  6. Mr. Ravi’s appearances were peppered with irrelevant social comment.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 825 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 140

6. Timeline

DateEvent
OS 825/2021 filed by 17 inmates of Changi Prison
AG filed an affidavit from the AG and another from the Director of the CNB
Sum 4462/2021 filed
Ms Lim’s Affidavit filed
Sum 4680/2021 filed
Sum 4462/2021 and Sum 4680/2021 dismissed
OS 825/2021 heard
Judgment on OS 825/2021 delivered
AG submitted on costs
Mr Cheng responded by letter
Mr Cheng responded
AG replied
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Personal liability of solicitors for costs
    • Outcome: The court held that Mr. Ravi acted unreasonably, negligently, and improperly, and that Mr. Cheng failed to supervise Mr. Ravi, thus both are jointly and severally liable for the costs.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unreasonable conduct
      • Negligent conduct
      • Improper conduct
      • Incurring unnecessary costs
  2. Abuse of process
    • Outcome: The court found that OS 825/2021 was an abuse of process due to its speculative nature and lack of foundation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Manifestly groundless proceedings
      • Speculative assertions
      • Diversion of public resources

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declarations regarding racial discrimination and abuse of power
  2. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Abuse of process

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 274SingaporeProvides the background and reasons for the decisions in Sum 4462/2021 and Sum 4680/2021, and the dismissal of OS 825/2021.
Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 1277SingaporeCited for the three-step test to determine if a solicitor should personally bear the costs of the opposing party.
Ridehalgh v HorsefieldChancery DivisionYes[1994] Ch 205England and WalesCited for the definitions of 'improper', 'unreasonable', and 'negligent' conduct in the context of personal liability for costs.
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 377SingaporeEndorsed the definitions of 'improper', 'unreasonable', and 'negligent' conduct as defined in Ridehalgh v Horsefield.
Then Khek Koon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and anotherHigh CourtYes[2012] 2 SLR 451SingaporeCited to state that the proper authority to which a breach of the PCR should be directed would be the Law Society.
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2022] SGCA 44SingaporeDistinguished on the basis that the counsels had conduct of the case at different points in time.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 59 r 8(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint)Singapore
Government Proceedings Act (Cap 121, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Costs
  • Personal liability
  • Unreasonable conduct
  • Negligence
  • Improper conduct
  • Abuse of process
  • Racial discrimination
  • Prosecutorial discretion
  • Rules of Court
  • Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules

15.2 Keywords

  • Costs
  • Solicitor's liability
  • Negligence
  • Abuse of process
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs95
Legal Profession Act80
Civil Practice75
Professional Conduct Rules70
Abuse of Process60
Duty of Candour50
Pleadings40
Constitutional Law40
Administrative Law30
Judicial Review30
Criminal Law25

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs
  • Legal Ethics