SINGAPORE, July 7— Workers’ Party (WP) chair Sylvia Lim and former party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang are liable for negligence to the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) while WP leader Pritam Singh is not, the Court of Appeal ruled today.
Any damages to be paid by Lim and Low over the finding that they are liable for negligence to AHTC will be assessed later, along with a decision on who will bear the legal costs.
In a decision that updates an earlier ruling last year, the apex court also found that former AHTC town councillors Chua Zhi Hon and Kenneth Foo are not liable for negligence over the payments process at the council.
The process involved the disbursing of more than S$23 million (RM79 million) over at least three years to AHTC’s managing agent FMSS.
The decision today is the latest development in a saga spanning over nine years, and follows the apex court’s decision in 2022 to reverse several findings made in the original trial of the matter in 2018.
In 2017, an independent panel acting on behalf of the WP-run AHTC as well as by the People’s Action Party-run Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC) sued the three WP leaders and some others.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal also maintained that the town councillors and employees are liable to Sengkang Town Council (STC) for negligence as a result of allowing control failures to exist in the payments system.
In 2020, STC appointed an independent panel to handle matters over the legal case ahead of a transfer of all assets and liabilities of PRPTC relating to the area of Pasir Ris-Punggol that is now part of Sengkang Group Representation Constituency.
Background of legal case
In its 2022 decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that Lim, Singh and Low did not owe fiduciary or equitable duties to AHTC. This refers to legal obligations.
The trio were also found to have acted in good faith over the awarding of contracts to two engineering firms on behalf of the council.
However, the trio, along with others involved in the case, were found to be “grossly negligent” in implementing AHTC’s payments process, which led to the persistence of what were called “control failures”, which created an inherent risk of overpayment.
Lim was also found to be liable in negligence for AHTC’s award of an electrical contract to Red-Power Electrical Engineering.
She had failed to prove that she acted in good faith when she did not renew contracts with Digo Corporation and Terminal 9, which offered the same services at significantly cheaper rates.
‘Unduly prejudice’
The latest chapter of the legal saga was heard by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Judith Prakash, Justice Tay Yong Kwang, Justice Woo Bih Li and Justice Andrew Phang.
In the ruling, Chief Justice Menon said that AHTC did not make any claim against Singh, Chua and Foo regarding the control failures in its trial closing submissions.
AHTC also did not cross-examine the trio regarding the control failures and did not submit in its closing submissions that the trio breached any duties regarding the control failures in the system.
“In these circumstances, we find that AHTC did not run any case — much less a clear case — against Singh, Chua, and Foo regarding the system,” he wrote.
Consequently, the three of them did not know that they had to defend a case against AHTC that they had breached any duties in relation to the system.
As such, it would “unduly prejudice” them for the court to now find them liable to the town council for breach of duty in permitting the control failures to exist.
Can AHTC make a fresh application?
The apex court said that AHTC has asked to make a fresh application to amend its pleading, without prejudicing the town councillors. A pleading is a legal document that outlines the basis for a lawsuit.
However, the apex court said that it cannot accept this submission.
It added that there must be two primary considerations before allowing an amendment.
Firstly, the amendment sought would enable the real issue in dispute to be determined, ensuring the “ends of substantive justice are met”.
Secondly, procedural fairness to the opposing party must be maintained.
This includes whether the amendments would cause any prejudice to the other party which cannot be compensated in cost and whether the amendments are giving the party — AHTC in this case, a “second bite of the cherry”.
But in this case, a fresh application would cause Singh, Chua and Foo “substantial prejudice” that could not be adequately compensated in costs.
“It would be giving AHTC a second bite at the cherry when no case was ever run against them from AHTC at the trial below,” said Chief Justice Menon.
It also noted that this fresh application is belated as it has been made after judgement has been rendered in the court and after an appeal judgement has been made. — TODAY
