The recent 2020 General Election is over, and the Workers’ Party (WP) won Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) resoundingly with 59.93% of the vote.
However, all isn’t well in Aljunied just yet, as 2 of its returning MPs are still embroiled in the long-running Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) lawsuits.
It’s not over even though 3 WP leaders were found liable of breaches by the High Court last year. Despite the case already being decided, lawyers for AHTC want to add claims against some of the defendants.
In the ruling on 11 Oct last year, then Aljunied GRC MPs and town councillors Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh were found liable for letting improper payments slide, resulting in damages suffered by AHTC.
2 other town councillors, Mr Chua Zhi Hon and Mr Kenneth Foo Seck Guan, were also found liable.
AHTC, through an independent panel, sought claims of $33.7 million with costs due to these improper payments.
If the MPs can’t pay up, they may be made bankrupt and forced to relinquish their parliamentary seats.
Apparently, AHTC lawyers from Shook Lin & Bok have applied to make changes to its statement of claims with regards to the case.
They filed the application with the High Court on 18 May.
The original statement had claimed that only Mr Low and Ms Lim breached their duties of skill and care to AHTC.
Now, among other changes, AHTC wants to make these claims against Mr Pritam, Mr Chua and Mr Foo also.
This is although the AHTC case was already decided by the High Court last year, and it’s appeal is set for ruling before the Court of Appeal this month.
The lawyers pointed out that the claims that they want to add are similar to those made by Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC) in a parallel lawsuit brought against the same defendants.
This is a rare move, said a lawyer interviewed by The New Paper.
Mr Peter Doraisamy said lawyers more commonly seek to amend claims before the hearing or during the trial, but trying to amend claims after the judgement has passed is more uncommon.
However, other lawyers say that court rules do permit plaintiffs to apply to amend claims at any stage of the trial, even after judgement and before the appeal stage.
Justice Ramesh, who made the initial ruling, heard the application in chambers on Monday (3 Aug).
In response, the 5 WP defendants have raised their objections to the proposed amendments.
The reasons why were laid out in their written submissions that was posted on the WP blog on Monday (3 Aug).
Here are some of their arguments.
AHTC had a lot of time to make changes to its statement of claims throughout the trial, the WP defendants say.
The defendants also pointed out that AHTC didn’t file an appeal against the original judgement made on 11 Oct 2019.
That means, it surmised, that AHTC isn’t dissatisfied with the decision.
It also means that AHTC isn’t trying to amend the claims so that the decision is changed in any way.
The defendants described AHTC’s latest action as trying for a “2nd bite of the cherry”.
That means, they said, that AHTC is trying to benefit from the findings of the judgement of PRPTC’s lawsuit.
They pointed out that on 9 Mar, AHTC also wanted to include orders in the judgement relating to claims that it didn’t plead.
In response, Justic Ramesh had told AHTC,
You cannot just piggyback on PRPTC’s claims.
The defendants said allowing AHTC to amend its claims undermine the rule that parties are bound by their pleadings, and is “clearly an abuse of process”.
If AHTC had applied to amend their claims before or during the trial, the defendants would have defended themselves in a different manner, they said.
Additional evidence would have been presented, especially by Mr Pritam, Mr Chua and Mr Foo, and other town councillors would have been called to testify.
Also, since the trial is over, the defendants would not be able to defend themselves over these new claims.
If the new claims are allowed, Mr Low and Ms Lim may have to pay an additional $583,641, they said.
As for Mr Singh, Mr Chua and Mr Foo, they may have to pay 12 times more, as the amount claimed would be increased by $33.7 million, from $2.79 million.
That’s because PRPTC’s claims weren’t as high as AHTC’s.
The application to add claims to an already-concluded case is unusual indeed.
Will it throw the entire case into more disarray, considering that it’s already complex enough?
What complicates matter further is that Punggol East, which used to be under WP and went back to PRPTC after GE2015, is now under the new Sengkang Town Council?
What do you think of the application by AHTC to add claims to a case that’s already been ruled on? Do tell in the comments below.
Featured images adapted from Facebook and Facebook.
He was believed to be a solo traveller.
Running out of ideas for where to makan is never an issue at this mall.
Authorities believe the train struck the man and dragged his body 200 to 300 metres…
The young woman won a Labubu doll bought from the reseller during a laksa stall's…
Police said the canine was tied while being sexually assaulted by the accused.
Phuket airport claimed the use of Singapore's shophouses in the mural was intentional.