\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE \u2013 A woman said to have a litigious tendency was ordered by the High Court to provide $15,000 as security to cover the potential costs of a court challenge she filed against a decision by the Singapore police to close her case. <\/p>\n
The sum is to be deposited with the court, acting as collateral to cover potential legal costs incurred by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) in the event that she fails in her application for judicial review. <\/p>\n
Madam Yang Hong had argued that she was willing to pay $1 to move the case forward. <\/p>\n
The Chinese national was ordered on Nov 11, 2025, to deposit $15,000 with the Supreme Court registry but has since filed an appeal against the order. <\/p>\n
In written grounds of decision issued on Jan 7, Assistant Registrar Randeep Singh Koonar said it was just to order security for costs given that the SPF would likely face significant difficulties in enforcing costs orders against Madam Yang in China. <\/p>\n
The assistant registrar added that her challenge did not have a reasonable prospect of success and that ordering security for costs would not unfairly stifle her claim. <\/p>\n
He said $15,000 was a reasonable sum, considering the costs guidelines of $14,000 to $35,000 for judicial review proceedings and the amount of work and time likely to be involved in defending the case. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt would also be obvious that Madam Yang had a litigious streak, and a propensity to advance wide-ranging arguments, with little regard to their merit,\u201d he said, noting that she has inundated the court with a mass of documents without explaining their relevance. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt was Madam Yang\u2019s prerogative to formulate her claim. However, she could not expect to be excused from the costs consequences which came with running a wide-ranging and extravagant case.\u201d <\/p>\n
The woman, who described herself as a \u201cpublic health whistle-blower\u201d, had lodged a police report in 2024 in Singapore over an alleged fraudulent business deal and an alleged public health risk. <\/p>\n
In her court filings, she purported to represent a Chinese company, Guangzhou Crown Trading, which was placed in bankruptcy in December 2023. <\/p>\n
Madam Yang\u2019s claim related to a contract made on March 5, 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic was becoming a global medical emergency. <\/p>\n
Under the contract, Singapore-registered company Innoso agreed to sell to Guangzhou Crown a fabric material that is used to manufacture medical masks. <\/p>\n
According to the contract, the material was to have a bacterial filtration efficiency (BFE) of more than 99.995 per cent. <\/p>\n
Madam Yang claimed that the delivered material \u2013 shipped by Indian company Jindal Poly Films \u2013 did not meet the specifications because it had a lower BFE, making it unfit for mask production. <\/p>\n
She said the alleged fraud caused Guangzhou Crown to suffer huge losses. She also claimed that Innoso had imported 149 tonnes of the material into Singapore and that this posed an \u201cimminent public health risk\u201d. <\/p>\n
Madam Yang said she lodged criminal complaints in China in 2020, and in India in 2022, but no action has yet been taken by the authorities in those countries. <\/p>\n
A criminal revision she filed in the Indian courts is pending. <\/p>\n
On Oct 8, 2024, she filed a police report in Singapore. <\/p>\n
The SPF initially told Madam Yang that based on the known facts, it would not take further action, but the decision could be revised if new evidence came to light. <\/p>\n
This led to a lengthy exchange of e-mails between her and the SPF. <\/p>\n
After the SPF said on Feb 20, 2025, that it would investigate her report, she made demands as to how the investigations should proceed. <\/p>\n
On July 29, the SPF told Madam Yang that, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and having consulted the Attorney-General\u2019s Chambers (AGC), it had decided to take no further action against Innoso for any criminal offences. The SPF said investigations into the matter would cease and the case would be closed. <\/p>\n
On Aug 6, Madam Yang filed the current application, seeking permission to start judicial review proceedings. <\/p>\n
On Oct 7, the SPF, represented by the AGC, asked the court to order her to furnish at least $15,000 as security for its legal costs because she lives outside Singapore. <\/p>\n
Madam Yang, who represented herself, argued that the usual legal principles for ordering security for costs did not apply in this case due to the inequality of resources between the individual and the state, and the public interest underlying judicial review proceedings. <\/p>\n
The assistant registrar rejected her argument, citing a Privy Council decision that there was no fundamental distinction between public authorities and private litigants in deciding whether to order security for costs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n