AGC urges court to declare Raymond Ng, Iris Koh vexatious litigants; defence backs their right to sue
Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- The Attorney-General Chambers (AGC) is asking a court to declare a couple, Raymond Ng and Iris Koh, as vexatious litigants.
- The AGC alleges the couple is using the civil justice system for improper purposes, calling it "lawfare."
- Lawyers for the couple argue that the AGC's request is unfair and infringes on their clients' right to sue.
Singapore's Attorney-General Chambers (AGC) is seeking a court order to label a couple, Raymond Ng and Iris Koh, as vexatious litigants. The AGC contends that the couple has been weaponizing the civil justice process through what it terms "lawfare," using lawsuits for collateral objectives rather than legitimate legal disputes.
According to the AGC, this pattern of litigation abuses the court system and imposes undue burdens. The "vexatious litigant" designation would impose restrictions on their ability to initiate further legal proceedings without court permission. The AGC's move signals a strong stance against what it perceives as the misuse of legal avenues for purposes beyond seeking justice.
The couple was waging 'lawfare' and weaponising the civil justice process for collateral purposes.
However, court-appointed lawyers representing Ng and Koh have opposed the AGC's application. They argue that the orders sought by the AGC would be fundamentally unfair and would unjustly curtail their clients' fundamental right to access the courts and pursue legal action. The defense maintains that their clients' actions are within their rights and that the AGC's characterization is an overreach.
This legal battle highlights a significant tension between the need to protect the integrity of the justice system from abuse and the right of individuals to seek legal recourse. The court's decision will have implications for how Singapore handles cases of alleged "lawfare" and the balance it strikes between judicial efficiency and individual access to justice.
the orders sought would be 'unfair'.
Originally published by CNA. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.