Vid Hypersonic June 25, 2015 Share June 25, 2015 Government, judges cannot be sued for judicial decisions: Apex court http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-crime/story/govt-judges-cannot-be-sued-judicial-decisions-apex-court-20150625#xtor=CS1-10 Published on Jun 25, 2015 9:04 AM 1083 5 0 0 PRINT EMAIL Singapore's Supreme Court building. -- PHOTO: ST FILE By K.C. Vijayan Senior Law Correspondent The apex court has made it clear that neither the Government nor judges can be sued for judicial decisions made, pointing to judicial immunity under the the Government Proceedings Act (GPA). The court yesterday released judgment grounds on why it had thrown out the $54 million in claims that a contractor and his firm had made against the Government, in a case which saw the Government's liability for judicial acts dealt with for the first time by the Court of Appeal. At issue before the court comprising Judges of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Andrew Phang, and Justice Tay Yong Kwang, was whether the Government could rely on the GPA to resist the claims. "In Singapore, the general rule is that the Government may be liable for, inter alia, the tortious acts of its public officers," noted Justice Chao. This means that the Government is liable like any ordinary employer. However, exceptions to this rule specified in the Act include those exercising judicial functions, he said. The litigant in the case and his firm Ho Pak Kim Realty (HPK) were disgruntled with the outcomes of two court cases and sued the Government for the way judges handled the cases. The first case involved a set of court orders between 2009 and 2011 governing ancillary matters after the marriage of the litigant - known only by his initials AHQ to protect his two children - was dissolved. This included care and custody of his children. The second case involved a spat between his firm and developer Revitech over a construction project. The case stretched seven years from 2006. Last year, he sued the Government, seeking $50 million in damages for judicial orders made in relation to the ancillary matters of his divorce, claiming not only that the orders were wrong but also the judges involved had acted maliciously against him. In the second case, HPK sought $4.8 million in damages, alleging that the judge involved had acted unfairly and the appeals court had erred in supporting the judge's decision. A High Court judge rejected the two appeals last September. The litigant appealed further and the Court of Appeal ruled that the High Court was right in dismissing the suits. The court said the litigant and his firm had either exhausted their rights of appeal or refused to pursue the proper means of seeking recourse. "To any reasonable person, that should have been the end of the matter. Regrettably, AHQ and HPK did not think so." Justice Chao said for the judicial system to function properly, the judiciary should not be "harassed by frivolous claims". The GPA applied in this case as the court orders in question were made during judicial proceedings, he said. "The independence of the Judiciary is one of the foundation pillars of Singapore's constitutional framework and must not be shaken. To this end, the Government should not be liable for the acts of the Judiciary, over which it has no control or influence," wrote Judge Chao. [email protected] I find it apt to use this picture to describe the whole situation ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingenius Turbocharged June 25, 2015 Share June 25, 2015 (edited) Basically saying that the judge and court cannot be held liable for a perceived wrong verdict that lead to losses. Correct ? Edited June 25, 2015 by Ingenius Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kusje Supersonic June 25, 2015 Share June 25, 2015 Headline: Court says courts cannot be held responsible for wrongdoing. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarPark8 3rd Gear June 25, 2015 Share June 25, 2015 Basically saying that the judge and court cannot be held liable for a perceived wrong verdict that lead to losses. Correct ? If you are wrong, will you blurt and scream your ex-girl friend's name here? PS: I am dying to know her name Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanCoe Hypersonic June 25, 2015 Share June 25, 2015 Says what ever done is history and the buck stops there, they are like "God Like" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingenius Turbocharged June 25, 2015 Share June 25, 2015 If you are wrong, will you blurt and scream your ex-girl friend's name here? PS: I am dying to know her name Sorry mate , I am married for so long that I have forgotten my ex name. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolicense Turbocharged June 25, 2015 Share June 25, 2015 Sorry mate , I am married for so long that I have forgotten my ex wife name. There, corrected for you.. is that why you only call your wife "darling"? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingenius Turbocharged June 25, 2015 Share June 25, 2015 There, corrected for you.. is that why you only call your wife "darling"? Lol. Ok, I got to give in to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soya Supersonic June 25, 2015 Share June 25, 2015 Not happy ah? Then take it up wif this judge lor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benarsenal Turbocharged June 25, 2015 Share June 25, 2015 Headline: Court says courts cannot be held responsible for wrongdoing. The law is above the law. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustank Hypersonic June 25, 2015 Share June 25, 2015 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydrocarbon Turbocharged June 26, 2015 Share June 26, 2015 The law is above the law. Basically, don't challenge the law, because the law is the law. =D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph22 Turbocharged June 26, 2015 Share June 26, 2015 Isn't it the same every where??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watwheels Supersonic June 26, 2015 Share June 26, 2015 Actually if you go read up every case that has dispute with any government entity the cases are usually being dismissed. I find it ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenfarm Turbocharged June 26, 2015 Share June 26, 2015 Actually if you go read up every case that has dispute with any government entity the cases are usually being dismissed. I find it ridiculous. Not true Bro... A cyclist got injured by barriers put up by LTA to prevent cyclist from using their bike on the overhead bridge won his case albeit 2 things that was against his favour - (1) Immunity provision under the LTA Act; (2) he had "illegally" rode his bicycle on the overhead bridge. And there are more if you do subsrcibe to Lawnet or have access to Law Reports. Of course if you're saying that the establishment is bias is a different claim altogether but if you said "every case", then I tend to have reservations over it Now back to my chickens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadX Moderator June 26, 2015 Share June 26, 2015 hmmm...why this now ah? think sth to do with NGerng case next week Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picnic06-Biante15 Supersonic June 26, 2015 Share June 26, 2015 The law is above the law. Well..... Justice Pao also asked his men to behead a person with hood who walk into the court and no question asked. They followed his instruction and thereafter remove the hood and found that it was Justice Pao head. He sentence himself for wrongly excuted (beheaded) a person..... That the story of Justice Pao... Law is Law, no one is above the LAW ... ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In NowRelated Discussions
Related Discussions
smoky vehicles...
smoky vehicles...
Tin Pei Ling appointed director of public affairs and policy at Grab. Can like that ah? 🤭
Tin Pei Ling appointed director of public affairs and policy at Grab. Can like that ah? 🤭
Eye surgery - cannot drive
Eye surgery - cannot drive
Sales pitch for animals
Sales pitch for animals
Cannot anyhow stick SPF decal liao!
Cannot anyhow stick SPF decal liao!
Survival of the fittest, we shouldn't waste anymore pocket money
Survival of the fittest, we shouldn't waste anymore pocket money
Free healthcare and higher taxes or die and cannot fall sick
Free healthcare and higher taxes or die and cannot fall sick