Syed Suhail v Attorney-General: Striking Out Contempt Application for Lack of Consent

In Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General, the General Division of the High Court struck out Originating Summons No 1025/2021, an application for leave to commence contempt of court proceedings, due to the plaintiffs' failure to obtain the Attorney-General's consent as required by the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016. The court ordered the plaintiffs' counsels, Mr. Ravi s/o Madasamy and Mr. Cheng Kim Kuan, to jointly and severally bear the costs of the application and the striking out proceedings.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Costs ordered against plaintiffs' counsels.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court struck out an application for contempt proceedings against the Minister for Law due to lack of Attorney-General's consent, ordering costs against the plaintiffs' counsels.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Roslan bin BakarPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Rosman bin AbdullahPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Ramdhan bin LajisPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Jumaat bin Mohamed SayedPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Mohammad Reduan bin MustaffarPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Muhammad Salleh bin HamidPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Zamri bin Mohd TahirPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Attorney-GeneralDefendantGovernment AgencySuccessful in striking out OS 1025Won
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 ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Moad Fadzir bin MustaffaPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Syed Suhail bin Syed ZinPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Hamzah bin IbrahimPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd ShariffPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Abdul Rahim Bin ShapieePlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Nazeri bin LajimPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Norasharee Bin GousPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Fazali Bin MohamedPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost
Rahmat Bin KarimonPlaintiffIndividualCosts ordered against plaintiffs' counselsLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kannan RameshJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ravi s/o MadasamyKK Cheng Law LLC
Cheng Kim KuanKK 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. Plaintiffs filed OS 1025 seeking leave to commence contempt proceedings against the Minister for Law and Home Affairs.
  2. Plaintiffs did not obtain the Attorney-General's consent before commencing OS 1025, as required by s 30 of the AJPA.
  3. The Attorney-General applied to strike out OS 1025 via SUM 4742.
  4. The Attorney-General notified the court and the plaintiffs' counsel of the lack of consent on the day OS 1025 was filed.
  5. Mr. Ravi argued that the plaintiffs did not require the Attorney-General's consent because s 30 of the AJPA was unconstitutional.
  6. Mr. Ravi showed a disregard for the timelines set by the court and was late for a pre-trial conference.
  7. Mr. Ravi made ad hominem attacks during the hearing of SUM 4742.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney General, , [2022] SGHC 184

6. Timeline

DateEvent
OS 1025 filed; Attorney-General sent a letter stating he did not give consent under s 30 of the AJPA.
Mr. Ravi turned up late for a pre-trial conference.
SUM 4742 heard and allowed, striking out OS 1025 entirely.
Attorney-General filed submissions on costs.
Deadline for plaintiffs, Mr. Ravi and Mr. Cheng to file reply submissions.
Mr. Cheng sent a letter urging the court not to impose costs on him.
Mr. Cheng sent a letter urging the court not to impose costs on him.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contempt of Court Proceedings without Attorney-General's Consent
    • Outcome: The court held that the application for leave to commence contempt of court proceedings was improperly commenced without the Attorney-General's consent, as required by s 30 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to obtain consent
      • Constitutional challenge to s 30 of the AJPA
  2. Personal Costs Orders Against Counsel
    • Outcome: The court ordered Mr. Ravi and Mr. Cheng to jointly and severally bear the costs of the proceedings due to their improper conduct and the unnecessary costs incurred by the Attorney-General.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Improper conduct of counsel
      • Unreasonable conduct of counsel
      • Negligent conduct of counsel
      • Causation of unnecessary costs
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] 1 SLR 1277

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Leave to commence contempt of court proceedings

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 1277SingaporeCited for the test for whether personal costs ought to be ordered against counsel pursuant to O 59 r 8(1) of the Rules of Court.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (No 19 of 2016)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Contempt of court
  • Attorney-General's consent
  • Personal costs order
  • Improper conduct
  • Unnecessary costs
  • Originating summons
  • Striking out
  • Administration of Justice (Protection) Act

15.2 Keywords

  • Contempt of court
  • Attorney-General
  • Consent
  • Costs
  • Singapore
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs95
Civil Practice75
Duty of Candour60
Professional Ethics50
Procedural Law40
Settlement30
Obstruction of Justice25
Administrative Law15

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contempt of Court
  • Costs