We are committed to being at the forefront of public interest litigation. Our team is highly visible in high-stakes public interest litigation involving constitutional challenges and judicial review of administrative actions. We are routinely called upon to present or act in cases as instructed lead counsels or as solicitors on record.
We believe in fighting for cases that matter, to shape the law on important issues such as sexual discrimination and police/prosecutorial misconduct. We are not afraid of taking on the best to the highest court of the land to argue constitutional principles of importance, such as free speech and equality.
- Acted for an individual in the High Court and Court of Appeal to challenge the constitutionality of section 377A of the Penal Code under Article 12 of the Constitution. The five-member apex court gave the client a partial victory by recognising the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation for the first time in Singapore law and by holding that section 377A is wholly unenforceable as it now stands by reason of the policy statements made in Parliament in 2007 and by the Attorney-General in 2018: reported in Tan Seng Kee v Attorney-General and other appeals  SGCA 16; Ong Ming Johnson v Attorney-General and other matters  SGHC 63.
- Acted for the complainant against two Deputy Public Prosecutors in disciplinary proceedings commenced under section 82A of the Legal Profession Act: reported in The Law Society of Singapore v Tan Yanying and another  SGDT 6.
- Acted for a practising solicitor of more than 25 years’ standing to seek administrative review in the High Court for declarations on the recording and use of various statements made by the solicitor to the police. Also acted for the solicitor in question in disciplinary proceedings commenced under section 85(3) of the Legal Profession Act: reported in Shanmugam Manohar v Attorney-General and another  3 SLR 600; Law Society of Singapore v Shanmugam Manohar  SGDT 9.
- Defended an individual in the first ever prosecution brought under section 3(1) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act before the High Court and a five-member Court of Appeal, and challenged the constitutionality of the provision under Article 14 of the Constitution: reported in Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General and other appeals  1 SLR 804; Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and another matter  3 SLR 482; Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and another matter  3 SLR 446.
- Acted for the chief editor of an independent online news website in a criminal motion before the High Court (General Division) to seek disclosure of statements made by the accused during police investigation. This case is notable for clarifying the ambit of the prosecution’s obligation to disclose unused material to the defence: reported in Xu Yuanchen v Public Prosecutor and another matter  4 SLR 719.
- Acted for a medical doctor in the Court of Appeal involving an application brought by the Ministry of Defence for an order under section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act. In a rare split decision, the apex court held that the Government is not a “person” within the meaning of the provision and is in any event unable to show that the making of such an order would be just and equitable: reported in Ting Choon Meng v Attorney-General and other appeals  1 SLR 373; Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and other appeals  1 SLR 1248; Attorney-General v Lee Kwai Hou Howard and others  SGDC 114.
- Acted for an individual blogger in the High Court and Court of Appeal in resisting an application by the Government against the blogger for contempt of court: reported in Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General  1 SLR 992; Attorney-General v Au Wai Pang  2 SLR 352; Attorney-General v Au Wai Pang  SGHC 16; Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General and another matter  3 SLR 357.