Lawyers for AHTC Seeking to Amend Statement of Claim Against Pritam Singh & Others

Changing your statement halfway through a court case could get you charged with giving false testimony in court.

But what about after the entire case is closed? And you’ve actually won the case.

That is what’s happening right now.

Lawyers for AHTC Seeking to Amend Statement of Claim Against Pritam Singh & Others

On 3 Aug 2020, it was reported that lawyers from Shook Lin & Bok, representing Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) submitted papers to add amendments to the claims made against Mr Pritam Singh and four others.

The AHTC case was concluded last year and found the eight defendants “liable for various breaches“.

AHTC has won the court case but it doesn’t mean they’ve won the war.

The eight defendants were found to be liable for damages and ordered to pay AHTC back for damages but the three Workers’ Party leaders (involved in the case) and two town councillors have filed for an appeal.

What’s The Difference?

Well, because we’re not trained lawyers, we can only refer to the ones who are well-versed with the nuances of the law.

According to Singapore Management University (SMU) Assistant Professor of Law Benjamin Ong, it’s AHTC’s strategy to “maximise its chance of success”.

The previous judgement given by the High Court was based on the finding that the eight defendants “owe fiduciary duties to AHTC”.

Fiduciary duties, he pointed out, “are strict duties of loyalty” where, if A owes a fiduciary duty to B, cannot:

• Make use of B to make profits or benefits for himself
• Not let his own interest come into conflict with B’s interest

The High Court’s judgement also ruled that A “owe a duty to take a certain level of skill and care in his dealings with B”.

By adding to the claims and charging the defendants with the “breach of duty to exercise care and concern”, AHTC is basically establishing a “second ground of liability” before the appeal is held.

Kind of like a backup plan.

So that even if A doesn’t owe fiduciary duties to B, AHTC can still get money from them.

Another simple example (not mine, it’s Assistant Professor Ong’s):

It’s like a driver driving his car on the roads of Singapore. While he has no fiduciary duties to other road users, he still has to take care not to harm them.

So if he harms anyone, he has to pay for his crime (if he hits and runs), help to pay for medical bills or pay a settlement to settle matters outside the court.

Will It Work?

Nobody knows.

The hearing of the application is scheduled to be held today so we should know by tomorrow.

But whether this addition will be valid or not depends on the “discretion of the courts”.