Yang Hong v Commissioner of Police, Singapore Police Force (Tanglin Police Division)

Mdm Yang Hong, a PRC national living in the PRC, applied in Originating Application No 832 of 2025 for permission to bring judicial review against the Commissioner of Police. Her complaint arose from a 2020 contract under which a PRC company, Guangzhou Crown Trading Co Ltd, which she said she operated, bought mask material from a Singapore company, Innoso Pte Ltd. She claimed the delivered material fell far below the promised filtration standard and that Innoso had committed fraud, and also claimed, from website data, that Innoso imported 149 metric tons of the same material into Singapore, posing a public health risk.

She made a police report in Singapore on 8 October 2024. The police at first decided to take no further action, then investigated after she sent more material, refused her demands to transfer the case to the Commercial Affairs Department, and on 29 July 2025, after consulting the Attorney-General's Chambers, closed the case. In OA 832 she sought to quash that decision, compel a transfer and obtain a preservation order over the imported material. An earlier application, OA 498, had been withdrawn with $5,000 costs ordered against her. By Summons No 2966 of 2025 the Commissioner applied for security for costs of $15,000 up to the permission hearing.

1. Whether different principles govern security for costs in judicial review proceedings
2. Whether the court's discretion under O 9 r 12(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021 was enlivened
3. Whether it was just to order security, considering enforcement, merits and stifling
4. Whether $15,000 was an appropriate amount of security

On the applicable principles, the court rejected a modified approach for judicial review. Following the persuasive Privy Council decision in Responsible Development for Abaco Ltd v Christie and others [2023] 4 WLR 47, there is no fundamental distinction between public authorities and private litigants, and O 9 r 12 does not distinguish between types of proceedings. The two-stage test in Cova Group Holdings Ltd v Advanced Submarine Networks Pte Ltd and another [2023] 5 SLR 1576 was flexible enough to account for any public interest, and costs ordinarily follow the event in judicial review, as in Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General [2013] 1 SLR 797.

The discretion was enlivened because she was undisputedly resident outside Singapore. It was just to order security. She had no assets in Singapore, enforcement in the PRC would be difficult since the Memorandum of Guidance is non-binding and limited to commercial cases, and she had not paid the earlier $5,000 costs order. Her claim had no reasonable prospect of success: s 424B of the Penal Code 1871 came into force only in 2023 and could not apply retrospectively, the record showed the police did investigate and gave her repeated chances to provide information, s 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 required no transfer to a particular department, and the preservation order was in substance an injunction against the Government barred by s 27 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956, with no evidence the material was still in Singapore.

On stifling, she bore an evidential burden but gave no evidence of her finances, while spending on fees and travel; her claims of hardship and of ability to pay were inconsistent. On quantum, $15,000 was at the lower end of the guideline range and reflected her repeated amendments and wide-ranging case.

The Assistant Registrar allowed the application and ordered Mdm Yang to furnish security of not less than $15,000 for the Commissioner's costs up to the disposal of the permission hearing, staying OA 832 until it was provided, save that she could appeal. She was also ordered to pay the costs of the summons, fixed at $5,500 (all-in).