People who abuse court processes could be held liable for contempt under the new law

CASES THAT ABUSE COURT PROCESSES

The courts in Singapore have in recent years denounced behavior that abuses the judicial process.

In January 2023, one of the applications of a man who had filed two lawsuits against a woman who had rejected him romantically was dismissed by a deputy registrar of the district court.

In a ruling, the deputy registrar described K Kawshigan’s civil action as an abuse of process, noting that the complainant had initiated the action with the “ulterior motive of annoying or oppressing the woman”.

In another case, two lawyers representing a Malaysian drug trafficker who tried at the last minute to prevent his execution were ordered in May 2022 to pay S$20,000 (S$15,309) in costs to the Attorney-General’s Chambers ( AGC).

The Court of Appeal found that the manner in which lawyers M Ravi and Violet Netto had conducted the case constituted a blatant and egregious abuse of the court process.

Also in 2022, a Supreme Court judge rejected a drug trafficker’s request for permission to initiate a judicial review against the AGC on the grounds that Mohammad Farid Batra had attempted to game the justice system by delaying the caning sentence until his 50th birthday. year of life delayed. He can’t be that with the cane when he’s 50.

In deciding on the changes, MinLaw said it consulted stakeholders, including the judiciary.

The proposed changes apply to all court proceedings in Singapore and include those that:

• Conduct or initiate legal proceedings knowing that the application involves deceiving the court or using the legal process for an ulterior motive
• Conduct or initiate multiple or successive legal proceedings which they know to be without any basis

The changes also make parties who encourage such behavior liable for contempt of court. For example, those who encourage parties to file a court petition behind the scenes for nefarious purposes.

However, MinLaw said individuals or lawyers who act with a genuine belief that their cases have merit will not be punished.

The court considers the circumstances of the case before deciding whether an act constitutes contempt.