A court officer has ordered Iris Koh, the founder of controversial anti-vaccine group Healing the Divide, to pay about S$23,000 in professional legal fees that she owes her former lawyers.

Court documents seen by TODAY show that the order was made against Koh on July 5. She currently faces two criminal charges of obstructing a police officer and defrauding the Ministry of Health over fake Covid-19 vaccination records.

In dismissing the 42-year-old Singaporean’s application to set aside a statutory demand from her ex-lawyers from Fervent Chambers LLC, Supreme Court assistant registrar Gan Kam Yuin described Koh's conduct as “ungracious”.

The lawyers issued the statutory demand on March 21 due to Koh’s failure to pay several invoices.

The outstanding balance amounted to about S$30,000, of which Ms Gan awarded S$23,373.80.

Koh was first hauled to court and charged in early January, which was when she hired defence counsel Clarence Lun and his team from Fervent Chambers for her criminal case.

The case is currently pending, though she has since engaged a new lawyer who successfully argued for her to travel to Malaysia to seek alternative treatment for her thyroid cancer.

She returned to Singapore last week and is due back in court on July 27.

Ms Gan noted that for the current proceedings over the unpaid legal fees, Mr Lun’s work could be broadly divided into three parts.

This included a criminal motion for Koh to be released on bail right before the Chinese New Year festivities. A High Court judge dismissed it before she was granted bail a few days later.

Another area of work was a potential judicial review application over Covid-19 advisories issued by the manpower ministry.

A judicial review seeks to ensure that the law is not in conflict with the doctrines of rule of law and separation of powers, or inconsistent with the Constitution.

Ms Gan found that the contract of engagement between Koh and her lawyers was for:

An hourly rate of S$500 for the criminal motion and earlier court proceedings

An agreed fee of S$2,500 for withdrawing an originating summons

An hourly rate of S$500 for the potential judicial review application, subject to an overall fixed fee of S$70,000 payable over four months

In considering work done for the criminal motion, Ms Gan took into account the urgency surrounding it. The motion was heard on Jan 31, the eve of the Chinese New Year festive period.

Koh had argued that Mr Lun’s team overcharged for work done and did not follow instructions. The lawyers claimed a total of S$24,125, while Koh said they were entitled to only S$5,000.

Mr Lun earlier agreed to a S$1 discount due to a disagreement over whether the lawyers had obeyed instructions about Koh’s request for access to counsel.

While Ms Gan accepted Koh’s argument that bail was not a complex or unique area or law, the registrar noted that Koh apparently failed to acknowledge that the lawyers worked at short notice and over a weekend.

Ms Gan also ruled that Koh’s argument — that the lawyers could not have advised her or taken her instructions because she was remanded — was “without merit”.

Mr Lun previously told the court they had dealt with Koh’s spouse Raymond Ng, and that Koh had authorised them to proceed that way.

“I note that the client took the benefit of the work that was done through the husband. It is ungracious, to say the least, for the client to disavow the advice and the instructions that flowed through the husband,” Ms Gan added.

In a hearing held on May 11, the registrar also commented on emails Mr Ng had sent to Mr Lun while Koh was remanded. Mr Lun claimed in an affidavit that he was subjected to abuse from the other man.

Court documents showed that in one such email, Mr Ng referred to the S$1 discount, saying he sues people “as a hobby” and has “no qualms bringing lawyers to court”.

He wrote in another email: “Putting our understanding aside, do note, I am your CLIENT at that point of time, YOU are my SERVANT. You are obliged to obey EVERY of my instruction even if you knew that they were wrong.”

Mr Ng also wrote a vulgarity at one point and asked Mr Lun to “mark your next steps very very carefully”.

Ms Gan told Koh and her lawyer for these proceedings, Mr Mohamed Arshad from Fernandez LLC, not to "hide behind the fact" that the emails came from her husband.

Mr Arshad had argued that the "vulgarities and abuse are regrettable" but did not stem from Koh.

Mr Ng, 48, and Koh were previously investigated for allegedly instigating more than 2,000 members of Healing the Divide’s Telegram chat group to call and overwhelm public phone lines that help the public with Covid-19 matters.

In January, the Ministry of Health also filed another police report against Healing the Divide for purportedly telling parents to overwhelm medical staff members at paediatric vaccination centres with questions.

Source:
courtesy of TODAY

by LOUISA TANG

If you have any stories or news that you would like to share with the global online community, please feel free to share it with us by contacting us directly at [email protected]