Shorvon Simon v Singapore Medical Council: Disciplinary Proceedings & Scope of Costs Under Medical Registration Act

In Shorvon Simon v Singapore Medical Council, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the quantum of costs awarded against Prof. Simon Shorvon following disciplinary proceedings under the Medical Registration Act. The Disciplinary Committee found Shorvon guilty of professional misconduct and ordered him to pay costs. The court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the costs to $175,000, clarifying that costs incurred during the Complaints Committee phase were not recoverable as 'incidental' to the Disciplinary Committee proceedings.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding costs in disciplinary proceedings against Prof. Simon Shorvon. The court reduced the quantum of costs, clarifying the scope of recoverable expenses.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Shorvon SimonAppellantIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartialMyint Soe, Daniel Atticus Xu, Jamilah bte Ibrahim
Singapore Medical CouncilRespondentStatutory BoardCosts reduced on appealLostTan Chee Meng, Melanie Ho, Chang Man Phing

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Chao Hick TinJudge of AppealNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Myint SoeMyintSoe and Selvaraj
Daniel Atticus XuMyintSoe and Selvaraj
Jamilah bte IbrahimMyintSoe and Selvaraj
Tan Chee MengHarry Elias Partnership
Melanie HoHarry Elias Partnership
Chang Man PhingHarry Elias Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Prof Simon Shorvon, a research scientist, was the director of the National Neuroscience Institute.
  2. Shorvon was the lead Principal Investigator of a research project funded by a $10m grant.
  3. Concerns were raised about research conducted on patients with Parkinson’s disease.
  4. The NNI appointed an inquiry panel, which found issues with patient confidentiality and ethics approval.
  5. The NHG filed a complaint with the SMC based on the panel's findings.
  6. The Disciplinary Committee found Shorvon guilty of professional misconduct.
  7. The DC directed Shorvon to pay costs and expenses incidental to the proceedings.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Shorvon Simon v Singapore Medical Council, CA 48/2005, [2005] SGCA 49
  2. Singapore Medical Council v Shorvon Simon, , [2005] SGHC 93

6. Timeline

DateEvent
NNI appointed an inquiry panel
The NNI Report was issued
NHG sent a letter to the SMC
NHG preferred a complaint with the SMC against the appellant
Judge dismissed both appeals
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Scope of Disciplinary Committee's power to order costs
    • Outcome: The court held that costs incurred at the complaints stage were not incidental to the disciplinary proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether costs incurred for work done for proceedings before Complaints Committee incidental to proceedings before Disciplinary Committee
  2. Principles to be applied in taxation of costs
    • Outcome: The court provided guidance on the factors to be considered in the taxation of costs, including complexity, skill, and time expended.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Particulars required to be furnished in bill of costs

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Payment of costs and expenses

9. Cause of Actions

  • Professional Misconduct

10. Practice Areas

  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • Taxation of Costs

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chia Yang Pong v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2004] 3 SLR 151SingaporeCited regarding the limitation of fines imposed by the SMC.
Tan Hun Hoe v Harte Denis MathewHigh CourtYes[2001] 4 SLR 317SingaporeCited as a comparison for costs awarded in medical negligence suits.
Tan Boon Hai v Lee Ah FongHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR 10SingaporeCited as a comparison for costs awarded per day.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan YewN/AYes[1993] 1 SLR 185SingaporeCited regarding the ascertainment of costs allowed for similar cases.
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale LtdN/AYes[1989] 1 WLR 1340N/ACited regarding the justification for departure from the norm.
Tullio v MaoroN/AYes[1994] 2 SLR 489SingaporeCited regarding the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with a judge's exercise of discretion.
Lim Teng Ee Joyce v Singapore Medical CouncilN/AYes[2005] 3 SLR 709SingaporeCited regarding the application of usual principles to the assessment of costs incurred in a disciplinary process.
Re Fahy’s Will TrustsN/AYes[1962] 1 WLR 17N/ACited for the interpretation of the words 'and incidental to' in an order for costs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Disciplinary Committee
  • Medical Registration Act
  • Taxation of Costs
  • Complaints Committee
  • Professional Misconduct
  • Getting-up Costs
  • Incidental Costs

15.2 Keywords

  • Medical Council
  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • Costs
  • Medical Registration Act
  • Singapore
  • Professional Misconduct

16. Subjects

  • Administrative Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Medical Law
  • Costs
  • Disciplinary Proceedings

17. Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Medical Law
  • Regulatory Law