This CNA report of 23 Jul 2023 provides a concise history of the long-drawn AHTC court case. We encourage anyone who is interested in the matter to click the link and read the report.

Selected Highlights (CNA Report)

How The Suits Came To Be

Accounting firm KPMG ran an audit and found what it termed “improper payments” worth over S$33.7 million (US$25.4 million) paid to FMSS and its subsidiary FMSI.

On behalf of AHTC, the independent panel filed a civil suit against the three WP MPs – Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Pritam Singh – to claim the money back.

This is not a criminal case, where a person is found guilty and sentenced to a range of options like jail or a fine, but is a civil one where a person found liable might have to pay damages to the suing party.

The Trial Judge’s Findings

Justice Kannan Ramesh agreed with the plaintiffs that the defendants were fiduciaries. He largely found that the defendants had breached various types of duties to the town council, ranging from fiduciary duties to duties of skill and care…

Appeal And Findings By The Court Of Appeal

The Court of Appeal overturned most of the liable findings by the trial judge, rejecting that the defendants were fiduciaries or owed equitable duties, on which most of the findings rested.

The Apex Court accepted the defence that the appellants had been acting in good faith for several of the claims levelled at them…

The court was also sympathetic to the situation the WP leaders were in when dealing with an unwilling CPG, and disagreed with the trial judge’s negative findings against the leaders over this.

However, the court did not completely clear the appellants. They found that the WP leaders and town council employees did not act in good faith when they implemented a standing instruction…

The court also found Ms Lim liable for negligence when she did not renew contracts with cheaper providers and instead awarded a contract to Red-Power.

What Lies Ahead

Now that the issue of liability has been determined, the next stage is for the court to assess what damages are payable, by whom and to whom.

“The plaintiffs’ case appears effectively to have been constructed on the perceived risks inherent in the payments process,” noted the court.

The court added that it was not clear if AHTC or SKTC had provided evidence of any instance where the control failures actually resulted in improper payments…

The court said the control failures may only demonstrate the risk of improper payments, and not the actualisation of that risk.

While it was theoretically possible that payments were certified and disbursed to FMSS or FMSI without the work being done properly, the burden lies on AHTC and SKTC as claimants to prove it, the court noted.

Potential Outcome

Even after the court rules on damages, the defendants can still appeal against the ruling. If so, there will be another round of appeal hearings before a final verdict is out. It could take months or even a few years before the entire saga comes to a close.