Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical Council: Disciplinary Proceedings & Natural Justice
In Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical Council, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Dr. Jerry Tan Tiang Hin against the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) regarding disciplinary proceedings. Dr. Tan sought judicial review of the Complaints Committee's decision to refer matters to the Disciplinary Committee and to prohibit the Disciplinary Committee from holding an inquiry into charges against him. The court allowed the appeal, quashing the Complaints Committee's decision and prohibiting the Disciplinary Committee from proceeding with the charges, finding that the Complaints Committee acted outside its powers and that Dr. Tan was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the charges.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Tan. The court addressed the scope of the Complaints Committee's powers and natural justice principles.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Medical Council | Respondent | Statutory Board | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Tiang Hin Jerry | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
| L P Thean | Justice of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Dr. Tan is an ophthalmologist and owns Jerry Tan Eye Surgery Pte Ltd.
- Dr. Tan owned one-third of the shares in Excimer Centre Pte Ltd.
- Excimer Centre Pte Ltd owns Specialist Eyecare Pte Ltd.
- Specialist Eyecare Pte Ltd owns an optical shop and an eye clinic.
- Dr. Cheong, president of the SMA, filed a complaint about Dr. Tan's shareholding.
- The Complaints Committee decided to place the matter before the Disciplinary Committee.
- Two charges were framed against Dr. Tan regarding advertising and promotion.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical Council, CA 144/1999, [2000] SGCA 17
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Optical shop commenced business | |
| Eye clinic commenced practice | |
| Article appeared in The Business Times | |
| Complaint letter sent to SMC | |
| SMC forwarded complaint to Dr. Tan | |
| Dr. Tan replied to SMC | |
| SMC informed Dr. Tan of Disciplinary Committee referral | |
| SMC's solicitors sent notice of inquiry | |
| Dr. Tan filed originating summons | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Administrative Discretion
- Outcome: The court found that the Complaints Committee was mistaken in their view as to the scope of their powers of inquiry under s 40(14) of the MRA but would not characterise its decision as irrational, unreasonable or lacking proportionality.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unreasonableness
- Irrationality
- Proportionality
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found that Dr. Tan had not received prior notice of the charges and was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on those charges.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Audi alteram partem
- Nemo judex in causa sua
- Disciplinary Proceedings Time Limits
- Outcome: The court found that there was a breach of s 41(3) of the MRA on the part of SMC, but the breach was a mere irregularity and is not a sufficient ground for nullifying or setting aside the decision of the Complaints Committee or the disciplinary process instituted by the SMC.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of time limit
- Effect of breach
- Jurisdiction of Complaints Committee
- Outcome: The court found that the matters referred in the two charges preferred against Dr. Tan were not the subject raised in the complaint of Dr Cheong and therefore in inquiring into such matters, the Complaints Committee had acted outside its powers in its determination.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of inquiry
- Relevance of charges
8. Remedies Sought
- Order of Certiorari
- Order of Prohibition
9. Cause of Actions
- Professional Misconduct
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Healthcare Law
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Seah Pong Tshai | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 399 | Singapore | Cited to show that the charge framed was different from the complaint both in form and in substance. |
| R v Board of Education | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1910] 2 KB 165 | England | Cited to support the principle that the Board did not address the question at all and there was no indication of the Board`s view on this matter. |
| Board of Trustees of the Maradana Mosque v Badiuddin Mahmud & Anor | Privy Council | Yes | [1967] 1 AC 13 | Ceylon | Cited to support the principle that managers had not been given notice of what was charged against them and allowed to make an answer. |
| Fairmount Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment | House of Lords | Yes | [1976] 2 All ER 865 | England | Cited to support the principle that the appellant had no opportunity of refuting the inspector`s observation or showing that the defects could not be repaired and accordingly the decision of the Secretary of State was quashed. |
| H Sabey & Co Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment & Ors | High Court | Yes | [1978] 1 All ER 586 | England | Cited to support the principle that the Secretary of State acted in breach of his duty audi alteram partem. |
| Lloyd & Ors v McMahon | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] AC 625 | England | Cited to support the principle that when a statute has conferred on any body the power to make decisions affecting individuals, the courts will not only require the procedure prescribed by the statute to be followed, but will readily imply so much and no more to be introduced by way of additional procedural safeguards as will ensure the attainment of fairness. |
| Majlis Peguam Malaysia & Ors v Au Kong Weng Joseph | Supreme Court | Yes | [1993] 2 MLJ 57 | Malaysia | Cited to support the principle that the period for appointing a disciplinary committee prescribed by the Malaysian Legal Profession Act was mandatory and that the appointment made out of time by some 12 days was void. |
| Coney v Choyce & Ors | High Court | Yes | [1975] 1 All ER 979 | England | Cited to support the principle that since there had been no substantial prejudice suffered by those for whose benefit the requirements had been introduced, the non-compliance with the regulations was a mere irregularity and did not render the approval of the Secretary of State invalid. |
| R v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex p Calveley & Ors | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1986] QB 424 | England | Cited to support the principle that a protracted delay had been held to have the effect of nullifying the decision of a disciplinary tribunal. |
| De Souza Lionel Jerome v A-G | High Court | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR 882 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that on the facts of the case there was a reasonable suspicion of bias and that the decision of the officer had been made in breach of the rules of natural justice. |
| Re Singh Kalpanath | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 639 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the impartiality of the tribunal was impugned on the ground that the chairman of the Disciplinary Committee had in the course of two conversations advised a legal assistant who was a witness for the applicant that he should tell the truth. |
| Re the Medical Registration Act (Cap 174) | High Court | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 176 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the decision of the Medical Council to strike his name off the register of medical practitioners was set aside, as one of the members of the Medical Council who heard the complaint against the applicant had been the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Health, the complainant at the material time. |
| Hannam v Bradford City Council | Court | Yes | [1970] 2 All ER 690 | England | Cited to support the principle that it is not necessary to pinpoint specific incidents that give rise to a reasonable suspicion of bias on the part of certain members of the Disciplinary Committee. |
| Ratnam v Law Society of Singapore | N/A | Yes | SLR 39 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that it is no light matter for a professional man to have to appear before a disciplinary committee of his professional body. |
| Tullio v Maoro | N/A | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 489 | Singapore | Cited regarding costs. |
| Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1993] 1 All ER 232 | England | Cited regarding costs. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 40(14) Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 41(3) Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 41(5) Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 40(4) Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 42(1) Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 42(2) Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Singapore Medical Council
- Complaints Committee
- Disciplinary Committee
- Medical Registration Act
- Professional Misconduct
- Conflict of Interest
- Advertising
- Promotion
- Natural Justice
- Audi alteram partem
- Nemo judex in causa sua
15.2 Keywords
- Medical Council
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Certiorari
- Prohibition
- Natural Justice
- Advertising
- Conflict of Interest
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Administrative Law | 90 |
| Medical Law | 70 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 60 |
| Medical Disciplinary Proceedings | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Healthcare Regulation
- Professional Ethics