On 2 November, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore decided that no cost order was to be imposed against the applicant in what was a Constitutional challenge in the interest of the public at large.
In February of this year the applicant, Mme Vellama, brought a case before the Court which sought a Court declaration that the Singaporean Prime Minister does not have absolute discretion in deciding when to call by-elections. The applicant’s case was dismissed in August and the Attorney General’s Chambers subsequently filed for costs against the applicant.
In considering the application for costs Justice Pillai commented that where the legal questions were of “genuine public concern” it may be “inappropriate to make a costs order against the applicant even where the judicial review is wholly unsuccessful.” At the heart of the proceedings were public law issues of general importance and not in the applicants own private interest. This element of the case was pivotal in Justice Pillai’s decision not to grant the order for costs. The Court noted the public interest element had been confirmed by the debate by Members of Parliament on the issue at hand in the case.
In reaching this conclusion the Court cited precedents from Australia, New Zealand and England where public interest issues such as environmental concerns had been raised in the Courts.
Bulletin readers may remember Advocate General Kokott of the CJEU opinion on the meaning of “prohibitive expenses” in environmental legal proceedings in the last PILA bulletin.