A husband-and-wife pair, Raymond Ng Kai Hoe and Iris Koh, have been ordered to pay S$12,000 in costs to the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) after their bid for a judicial review against the authority was dismissed. The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) announced on Sep. 27 that the court found the couple's application to be an abuse of process and granted HSA's request to strike out the case entirely.

Background

Raymond Ng and Iris Koh had filed for a judicial review seeking a mandatory order for HSA to investigate and prosecute entities using celebrities to advertise vaccination. Judicial review allows the High Court to supervise public bodies. The hearing took place on Sep. 19, with AGC representing HSA. AGC argued that HSA had already investigated the matter, and the couple's application was merely seeking an academic or hypothetical interpretation of the law, which constituted an abuse of the court's process. The judge ruled that the application disclosed no reasonable cause of action and decided it was in the interests of justice to strike it out. The S$12,000 in costs covers the striking out of the application and two other applications the couple had brought.

Asked for donations

Iris Koh, 48, sought support to pay the S$12,000 costs. She is the founder of Healing the Divide, a group that has opposed Covid-19 vaccines. "Despite this setback, we've learned a great deal from this experience about the complexities of pursuing a judicial review," she wrote. Koh added that this knowledge would be invaluable for future actions to uphold public rights. She noted that while the bar for striking out is high, the bar for a judicial review is "even higher," and the process would help them prepare for the next judicial review. Koh and her husband have previously mounted several cases against individuals or entities for reasons such as alleged defamation or breach of contract. Koh currently faces a litany of other charges and is due back in court in October.

Previous legal issues

Iris Koh has a history of legal troubles. Earlier this year, she was ordered by the Supreme Court of Singapore to pay about S$23,000 in professional legal fees. The court described her conduct as "ungracious" in that case. Koh's ongoing legal battles and her involvement in controversial actions have kept her in the public eye, often for contentious reasons.

Future implications

The dismissal of this judicial review and the associated costs may serve as a deterrent for similar future applications that lack substantial grounds. It also highlights the stringent requirements for judicial reviews in Singapore. As Koh and Ng consider their next steps, the legal landscape they navigate appears increasingly challenging. The outcome of Koh's upcoming court appearances in October will likely further influence their future actions and the public's perception of their advocacy efforts.