MAH KIAT SENG v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & 2 Ors
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Philip Jeyaretnam |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Chin Wan Yew, Rachel, Sarah Shi |
Source: [2023] SGHC 52, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (3)
Parties (4)
Case Significance
Mah Kiat Seng v Attorney-General and others [2023] SGHC 52 is a costs ruling of the General Division of the High Court (Suit No 256 of 2020), decided by Philip Jeyaretnam J on 3 March 2023 following his earlier substantive decision in [2023] SGHC 14. After Mah Kiat Seng, a litigant in person, succeeded on some claims (including against Mohamed Rosli bin Mohamed for unlawful apprehension and against the police over a search) but failed on others, the court heard the parties on the incidence of costs. The judge put the decision in writing because there is a paucity of authority on the principles for assessing the costs of a litigant in person; the Attorney-General argued costs should follow the event while Mah urged the court to treat the overall "thesis" of wrongful arrest as the measure of success.
Summary
This was a costs decision following an earlier judgment in Mah Kiat Seng's suit against the Attorney-General and two others, raising how costs for a litigant in person should be assessed. The court held Mah was entitled to costs on his successful claim against one defendant but had to pay costs on his unsuccessful claim against another, assessing his litigant-in-person costs by reference to the Magistrate's Court scale. The result was a net balance of costs owing to the defendants, against which his damages could be set off.
What did Mah Kiat Seng v Attorney-General [2023] SGHC 52 decide?
The judgment is Philip Jeyaretnam J's written costs ruling of 3 March 2023 in Suit No 256 of 2020, following his substantive decision in [2023] SGHC 14. It addresses how costs are assessed for a litigant in person, an area with little authority.
Why did the court issue a written costs decision in Mah Kiat Seng v Attorney-General ([2023] SGHC 52)?
Philip Jeyaretnam J explained he put the costs decision in writing because there is a paucity of authority on the principles for assessing the costs of a litigant in person, an issue that arose after Mah succeeded on some claims but failed on others.
Cases Cited (2)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
Referenced in
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 52)