Wong Souk Yee v AG [2019] SGCA 25 … 43 Turning to the essential characteristics of public interest, it has been held that where a matter raises a legal question of genuine public concern, it may be inappropriate to make a costs order against the applicant even where the judicial review is wholly unsuccessful … 44 At their very core, court proceedings carry public interest where they raise public law issues of general importance, and in which the applicant is not seeking to protect some private interest. It is important to emphasise that public interest dimensions are not established for the purposes of costs by reason only that public law issues are raised or that leave has been granted to proceed with the judicial review hearing. Ultimately whether public interest warrants departure from the general rule that costs follow the event will depend entirely on the particular facts in each case. [emphasis added in bold italics] 90 The High Court in Vellama (HC) extended the category of proceedings in which public interest could be relied on to justify departing from the usual costs orders made in litigation. Such a departure was recognised in Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 1279 at [24] in respect of situations where public bodies were performing public duties which they had been charged to carry out. In Vellama (HC), the court considered that public interest would also be engaged where court proceedings raised public law issues of general importance, and where the applicant was not seeking to protect some private interest. This broader test was drawn from the English High Court decision of Regina v Lord Chancellor, Ex parte Child Poverty Action Group [1999] 1 WLR 347 (see Vellama (HC) at [43]). 91 In our judgment, the decision in Vellama (HC) was wrong and should not be followed. 92 The requirement that “the applicant is not seeking to protect some private interest” sits uneasily with our recent jurisprudence on the standing 37