[ad_1]
Leading Lawyer Davinder Singh (Singh) is a household name in legal circles. He has acted for a long list of government members and it is reasonable to assume that his services are not cheap. Looking at what has been charged in the recent court case between the founder of the Fragrance hotel chain, James Koh Wee Meng (Koh) and the Rolls-Royce agent, Trans Eurokars, Singh's fee for representing Koh in this lawsuit was estimated at $ 1.2 million.
Now that Singh is acting for Pasir Ris Punggol City Council (PRPTC) against some members of the Workers' Party (WP) in the infamous City Council affair, it is perhaps reasonable to imagine that Singh's fees would also be much higher than this figure. , given the complicity and duration of this trial. (Note that Singh did most, if not all, of the cross-examination of the defendants, even though AHTC claimed a much higher amount.)
It can be assumed that these costs would be borne by PRPTC as the prosecution is apparently being brought on its behalf. This raises the question: were electors consulted before such an amount was potentially incurred? Given that the CPP is managed with public funds, is it fair that this decision be made without the explicit consent of the latter?
In such civil cases, it is common for the court to order the losing party to pay court costs incurred by the winning party's attorneys. This would mean that if the WP loses the case, it will probably have to assume not only its own legal costs, but also those exposed by the PRPTC and Aljunied Hougang City Council (AHTC). In other words, AHTC's and PRPTC's attorney's fees would not be levied on city council funds if they won the case.
However, in any court case, there is always a chance that one or the other party will lose. Do the respective councils therefore play with the public money by taking such risks?
And even if WP loses the lawsuit, the legal fees claimed by PRPTC will be subject to taxation. The Supreme Court stated that it "would allow a reasonable amount for all reasonably incurred costs and any doubt as to whether the costs were reasonable or the amount to be reasonable must be resolved in favor of the party paying". As in the case of Eurokars Koh vs. Trans, the judge reduced court costs by US $ 608,807 before legal costs to $ 320,000, which is "excessive compared to And also excessive "compared to the costs in other cases. Thus, PRPTC may not even recover the full amount from the defendants.
I am certainly not alone in asking these questions. A person apparently wrote to his city council, PRPTC, about how a costly lawyer, such as Singh, had been funded. Her e-mails were unanswered and, after several phone calls from her, she was informed that the city council was not able to answer such a question while the trial was still ongoing.
As emphasized by a PRPTC resident:
1) Can City Council choose to spend large sums on non-property expenses, as it wishes, without informing or consulting with residents?
2) Can the TC keep information about the major expenses of their residents?
3) Did the TC organize a bidding process before deciding which lawyer to use?
4) Did the TC violate TC's rules and regulations? These are all very valid questions.
Will there be an answer to these questions and if not, should not we call for accountability?
In reviewing the complaints that PRPTC and AHTC jointly made against the task force, the damages awarded may be lower than Singh's litigation costs.
In such a scenario, who would pay the excess legal fees? Would Singh reduce his fees? If so, will it potentially look like a politically motivated lawsuit? If Singh does not reduce his fees and the city council ends up paying them, how can this case be considered beneficial to its residents?
Would residents not be required to pay more than the damages received, making the pursuit a waste of resources without any benefit, other than the ability to bring down three opposition politicians?
[ad_2]
Source link
