Fictitious claims, time-wasting tactics will be seen as contempt of court under new Bill
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 15 Oct 2024
Author: Nadine Chua
The proposed amendment comes as abuse of court processes becomes more common in Singapore, with parties filing unmeritorious claims to oppress others.
The use of time-wasting tactics and fictitious claims to delay criminal proceedings will be considered contempt of court under a new Bill, with offenders facing a possible jail sentence and fine.
The proposed amendment comes as abuse of court processes becomes more common in Singapore, with parties filing unmeritorious claims to oppress others, or for ulterior purposes, said the Ministry of Law (MinLaw).
Minister of State for Law Murali Pillai introduced the Administration of Justice (Protection) (Amendment) Bill in Parliament on Oct 14. If passed, the Bill will make it clear to the public that egregious cases of abuse of process will amount to contempt of court under the law.
Examples of such conduct include parties commencing civil proceedings to seek financial damages, in a bid to oppress the defendant despite knowing the claim is without foundation.
The law will also consider filing fictitious claims to delay criminal proceedings, and persistently making applications that are manifestly groundless, as contempt of court.
It will also be considered contempt of court if an individual commences a court proceeding despite knowing it is fictitious or “constitutes a mere sham”.
MinLaw said the amendments are intended to proactively deter abuses of the court process, to safeguard the administration of justice in Singapore.
The ministry added that litigants and lawyers who act with reasonable care and in good faith will not be penalised.
“Ultimately, the court will be able to examine the circumstances of the case, when considering whether the conduct constitutes contempt,” said MinLaw.
Those who commit contempt of court, including those who cause or abet such conduct, will be liable for punishment.
The punishment depends on the level of the court in which the contempt takes place.
If it takes place in the High Court or the Court of Appeal, the individual can be fined up to $100,000 and jailed for up to three years.
Those judged to have committed contempt of court during proceedings in the State Courts or other courts can be fined up to $20,000 or jailed for up to one year.
MinLaw said such serious cases of abuse of court processes will undermine the authority of the court and impede the administration of justice.
“This can impact the reputation of Singapore’s legal system and lead to an erosion of trust in our court system. Such cases also cause financial and psychological harm to the individuals who are forced to defend unmeritorious claims,” the ministry added.
In a recent case, a 49-year-old drug trafficker attempted to game the judicial system by delaying his caning sentence from being carried out until after his 50th birthday.
Men above the age of 50 are exempt from caning.
Mohammad Farid Batra, who was convicted of trafficking heroin, filed a court application arguing that it was unfair that another man involved in the drug deal was not charged over a package of methamphetamine.
His application was dismissed in 2022 by Justice Aedit Abdullah, who said in his judgment that if Farid was represented by counsel, the lawyer could expect severe consequences for abusing the court’s processes.
But Farid probably expected little downside from mounting such an application that was “audaciously and brazenly devoid of any merit or hope”, said the judge.
In another case, the Court of Appeal ordered two lawyers to pay $20,000 in costs to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) for blatant abuse of court processes.
They had acted for Malaysian drug trafficker Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam in a last-ditch attempt to halt his execution.
Lawyer M. Ravi, who did most of the work, was ordered in 2022 to bear 75 per cent of the costs, while Ms Violet Netto, who later took over as the lawyer on record, was held liable for 25 per cent.
The AGC had originally sought personal costs totalling $40,000 against Mr Ravi and Ms Netto for setting out to delay Nagaenthran’s execution by filing unmeritorious applications, which caused it to incur unnecessary costs.
MinLaw said those who commence civil suits that are manifestly groundless can also be held accountable for contempt of court.
In 2023, The Straits Times reported that a man who wanted a romantic relationship with a woman initially threatened to sue her for emotional trauma, after he found out that she saw him only as a friend.
The legal action was kept at bay after she agreed to take part in counselling with him, but almost 1½ years later, Mr K. Kawshigan still could not accept that Ms Nora Tan did not want to be in a relationship with him.
After she cut off contact with him, he filed two lawsuits against her – a $3 million High Court claim for allegedly causing “damage to his stellar reputation” and “trauma, depression and impacts” to his life, as well as a $22,000 Magistrate’s Court claim for allegedly breaching an agreement to improve their relationship.
The suit in the Magistrate’s Court was struck out by State Courts deputy registrar Lewis Tan, who said Mr Kawshigan’s claim was “manifestly groundless and without foundation” and amounted to an abuse of the court process.
Mr Tan said the case was intentionally initiated by Mr Kawshigan with the ulterior motive of vexing or oppressing Ms Tan by requiring her to defend various claims.
The deputy registrar added: “This court will not be an accessory to his calculated attempt to compel engagement from the defendant who, after years of massaging the claimant’s unhappiness, has finally decided to stand up to his threats rather than cower and give in to his demands.”
According to court records, the $3m claim has been transferred to the State Courts and is pending.
Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
1074