Singapore — It was certainly an eventful day for lawyer Ravi M Ravi, who raised his voice against High Court judge Audrey Lim, called the opposing lawyer “a clown” and later said he would discharge himself from a lawsuit against SBS Transit.
The hearing for the lawsuit, which began on Monday (Nov 22) and was held via video conference, was supposed to last four days. But the proceedings came to a halt after Mr Ravi accused the judge of being biased and insisted that she disqualify herself from hearing the case.
In their suits filed in 2019 and 2020, the workers claimed they were made to work without a rest day each week while their overtime work was underpaid.
Justice Lim said in June that the suit contains important legal issues that would affect a larger class of workers in Singapore.
As if raising his voice against the judge were not enough, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, the lawyer for SBS, was called a “clown” by Mr Ravi in the discussion of administrative matters.
Mr Ravi then went on to say that he and his client Mr Chua Qwong Meng, were “discharging” themselves and claimed that there had been a breach of the right to a fair trial, the Straits Times reports.
He further qualified that Mr Chua is “withdrawing not in terms of the normal withdrawal. He does not want to participate anymore in this unlawful proceedings,” and then added that the help of “Dr Mahathir” would be sought, since 4 out of 5 drivers in the suit are Malaysian.
Mr Ravi said that their case would be filed at the International Court of Justice.
Next Monday (Nov 29) Justice Lim will hear Mr Ravi’s formal application to discharge himself.
In June, Justice Lim allowed for the case to be transferred to the High Court, noting: “The question of whether this can be ‘overridden’ in a case where an employee is deemed to provide essential services…is important, as it affects a larger population of workers in general and not just the immediate plaintiff or parties to the case.”
Under the Act, an employer is permitted to require employees in essential services to work over the prescribed limit of hours as well as on rest days.
The questions raised require an interpretation of the provisions of the Act concerning rest days — whether they can be rescheduled so that an employee can be made to work for 12 consecutive days over a 14-day period.
Furthermore, the definition of “employees providing essential services” needs to be clarified to make sure whether bus drivers fall in this category, reports noted.
There would be potential adjustments on how employment contracts are drafted regarding rest days, overtime work computation and determination of work hours, said Justice Lim.
Five bus drivers filed a magistrate’s court suit against SBS Transit on Sept 20, 2019. Eight others followed with a similar suit.
It was reported that in 2020, the parties agreed that the suit of one plaintiff could be heard as a test case to save time and money.
The trouble began this morning when an exchange of words arose between the two lawyers while they were discussing a witness in the absence of the judge, including a schedule for a witness to testify.
Mr Ravi told Mr Singh “don’t be a clown, just email,” and added that he wanted to go to the bathroom.
When the judge joined the lawyers, Mr Singh told her of Mr Ravi’s remark.
And when Justice Lim asked Mr Ravi about this, he raised his voice and denied it.
In the meantime, another lawyer from Mr Singh’s firm, Mr Timothy Lin, who had gone to the office of Mr Ravi, was asked to leave.
His client, Mr Chua, was also in the office.
At one point, the video went to black, and raised voices were heard.
Mr Ravi posted a video of Mr Lin leaving his office on his Facebook account. He called the other lawyer’s presence “very shocking” since documents were in his office, calling this a “breach of privileged information.”
But Mr Singh said he had written to Mr Ravi on Nov 18 to let him know one of his associates would represent him during Mr Chua’s testimony.
The judge then said the representative would attest to Mr Chua testifying without notes, and told Mr Ravi that he’s also allowed to have a witness in Mr Singh’s office during the testimony of SBS witnesses.
She gave Mr Ravi the choice of having Mr Lim in the room behind Mr Chua, so he cannot view the documents, or put up a camera to prove Mr Chua is alone in the room.
But Mr Ravi told her, “Your direction is wrong. I’m applying to you to disqualify yourself. You are biased because you asked Mr Singh’s lawyer to come to my office.”
The judge said she would not recuse herself, and Mr Ravi replied that he would file notice of appeal.
At one point, because he kept talking while she was speaking to the Mandarin interpreter, she told Mr Ravi not to interrupt.
He then said, ”You are not above me.”
She replied, “I’m aware we are all human beings.”
At this point, he told Justice Lim he would discharge himself, saying, “Mr Chua doesn’t trust any lawyer in Singapore. I’m not participating in this proceedings. You can pass whatever judgment you want. I’m retiring soon.”
Later, after speaking with Mr Chua, he added ”I would like to discharge ourselves from this case… My client said he doesn’t have faith in the system.” /TISG
SBS Transit sued by group of bus drivers in dispute over overtime pay