[ad_1]
The higher court has asked the lawyers representing the various parties in the lawsuit involving the Aljunied-Hougang City Council (AHTC) and the Pasir Ris-Punggol City Council (PRPTC) against the President of the Workers’ Party (WP) Sylvia Lim and others to address the issues you have raised. for the hearing of the case.
The Court of Appeal raised the questions in a letter last week after having read and considered his documents and submissions, according to court records.
Among other things, the court has asked the parties to address the question of whether Parliament intended that councilors or employees of town halls have fiduciary obligations in the performance of their statutory functions.
Fiduciary duties involve private law, which is a branch of law that deals with relationships between people or institutions, unlike public law, which deals with relationships between said entities and the State.
The Court of Appeal wants the parties to address the implications of the High Court’s finding that defendants first through seventh had fiduciary duties, on the normal distinction between private law and public law.
The court also wants the parties to address the scope of Section 52 of the Town Halls Act and whether any of the defendants have a right to claim immunity under the section and, if so, in relation to which claims.
The appeals court hearing due later this year follows a High Court ruling last year, which held that former WP Low chief Thia Khiang and Ms Lim had breached their fiduciary duties with AHTC, among other things.
They were then councilors of AHTC, who, through an independent panel, had filed a civil suit against them for alleged improper payments made under their supervision.
The case also involved the current head of WP, Pritam Singh, and two other AHTC councilors, along with their former managing agent, FM Solutions and Services, and the two owners of the company.
All eight defendants are appealing in connection with AHTC’s main lawsuit.
At the same time, PRPTC, under which Punggol East was a ward of WP at the time, is also appealing against Judge Kannan Ramesh’s judgment in relation to Ms Lim and three other defendants.
PRPTC had filed a parallel lawsuit against Ms. Lim, Mr. Low, and six other defendants in Superior Court for alleged losses suffered while Punggol East was under their surveillance. He started the civil lawsuit after the AHTC led by WP brought the same defendants to court.
In its letter, the Court of Appeal raised six sets of questions, each of which had a particular topic that it listed.
One set relates to the Superior Court’s finding that defendants first through seventh had fiduciary obligations to the city council.
“Is there any evidence that Parliament intended councilors and town hall employees to have fiduciary duties in the performance of their statutory functions?” asked the court.
“Taking into account the existing regimes that regulate city councils and councilors, what role does fiduciary law play in this specific context?” added.
On the other hand, the court also asked what alternative reparations are if it is determined that defendants first through seventh do not owe fiduciary obligations to the city council.
In relation to claims for breach of the common law duty of care, the court has asked to be asked what are the rules by which damages caused by each alleged breach will be assessed.
Legal sources say the questions suggest that the court intends to clarify the interplay between private law (specifically, on fiduciary duties and customary law duties of care) and public law in the context of city councils.
“It is clear that the Court of Appeal wishes to hear arguments on various legal questions about the precise legal principles governing the duties that various people have towards municipalities,” said the associate professor of law at the Singapore Management University (SMU). , Benjamin Ong.
“An important question is whether defendants owe fiduciary obligations to plaintiffs. There are certain established categories of cases: for example, the director of a company owes fiduciary obligations to the company; a lawyer owes fiduciary obligations to a client.
“But courts have never before had to address the question of who owes fiduciary duties to a city council,” he said.
“Both the fiduciary duties and the duties of care are governed by the common law dictated by the judges. The issue in this case is that we have another source of law, namely the following statutes: the Municipalities Law and the Financial Regulations of the municipalities, “he added.
SMU law professor Nicholas Liu emphasized that the questions raised by the court do not suggest that the court has formed a firm opinion on the dispute or any particular outcome.
“The plaintiffs essentially argue that both legal regimes impose duties and responsibilities on councilors. Defendants argue that the two legal regimes are separate: only public law applies to councilors in the performance of their duties before the city council. The plaintiffs had success in judgment on this point “.
[ad_2]
