Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council: Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings
Dr. Chai Chwan, a registered medical practitioner, applied to the High Court of Singapore for judicial review against the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) concerning disciplinary proceedings related to his Subutex prescribing practices. The SMC brought complaints against Dr. Chai regarding his prescribing practices of Subutex, Dormicum, and Stilnox. Dr. Chai sought to quash the SMC's decisions to refer the complaints to a disciplinary committee. The High Court dismissed the application, finding it premature and that Dr. Chai had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for judicial review. Dr. Chai has appealed against the dismissal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application for leave for judicial review dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dr. Chai Chwan seeks judicial review of SMC's disciplinary proceedings regarding Subutex prescriptions. The application was dismissed due to prematurity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chai Chwan | Applicant | Individual | Application for leave for judicial review dismissed | Lost | Rebecca Chew, Kelvin Poon, Mark Cheng, Loke Pei Shan |
| Singapore Medical Council | Respondent | Statutory Board | Application for leave for judicial review dismissed | Won | Harry Elias S.C., Melanie Ho, Chang Man Phing, Doris Chia, Kylee Kwek |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Rebecca Chew | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Kelvin Poon | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Mark Cheng | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Loke Pei Shan | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Harry Elias S.C. | Harry Elias Partnership |
| Melanie Ho | Harry Elias Partnership |
| Chang Man Phing | Harry Elias Partnership |
| Doris Chia | Harry Elias Partnership |
| Kylee Kwek | Harry Elias Partnership |
4. Facts
- Dr. Chai is a registered medical practitioner and licensee of Little Cross Family Clinic Pte Ltd.
- The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) is a statutory board regulating medical practitioners.
- Complaints were lodged against Dr. Chai regarding his prescribing practices of Subutex.
- The Complaints Committees decided to refer the complaints to a disciplinary committee.
- Dr. Chai applied for leave to apply for judicial review to quash the decisions of the Complaints Committees.
- The High Court dismissed the application for leave for judicial review.
5. Formal Citations
- Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council, OS 1756/2007, [2009] SGHC 115
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| MOH lodged complaint against Dr. Chai regarding Subutex prescribing practices. | |
| MOH lodged second complaint against Dr. Chai regarding Subutex, Dormicum and Stilnox prescribing practices. | |
| First Complaints Committee decided to refer the 2003 Complaint to a disciplinary committee. | |
| Second Complaints Committee decided to refer the 2004 Complaint to a disciplinary committee. | |
| Dr. Chai applied for leave for judicial review. | |
| Leave to amend the application was granted. | |
| High Court dismissed Dr. Chai's application for leave for judicial review. |
7. Legal Issues
- Delay in filing application for judicial review
- Outcome: The court held that Dr. Chai had accounted for the delay in filing OS 1756.
- Category: Procedural
- Breach of Section 40(1) and 40(2) of the Medical Registration Act
- Outcome: The court found no indication that the Chairman of the Complaints Panel exceeded his jurisdiction, acted unfairly, acted unreasonably, or failed to have regard to a material consideration in extending time.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether the charges against Dr. Chai are ultra vires the complaints
- Outcome: The court held that the charges were not ultra vires the complaints.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether the late appointment of a disciplinary committee was contrary to Section 41(3) of the Medical Registration Act
- Outcome: The court held that Section 41(3) is merely directory and not mandatory, and the late appointment of the Disciplinary Committee did not nullify the appointment.
- Category: Procedural
- Whether the application for leave was premature
- Outcome: The court held that the application for leave was premature.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing order
- Prohibitory order
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Judicial Review
- Healthcare Regulation
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin & Ors v Minister for Information and the Arts | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of proof required for granting leave to apply for judicial review. |
| IRC v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1982] AC 617 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the court should consider whether the material discloses an arguable case when deciding whether to grant leave for judicial review. |
| Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 644 | Singapore | Cited to support the test for granting leave to apply for judicial review, requiring the applicant to show an arguable and prima facie case of reasonable suspicion. |
| Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex p Swati | N/A | Yes | [1986] 1 WLR 477 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the applicant must show that the grounds for judicial review are real as opposed to a theoretical possibility. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | Court of Appeal | No | [2007] 2 SLR 568 | Singapore | Distinguished from the present case regarding the explanation for delay in filing the application for judicial review. |
| Pang Chen Suan v Commissioner for Labour | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR 648 | Singapore | Cited for guidance on hearing ex parte applications for leave for judicial review. |
| Council of Civil Services Unions v Minister for the Civil Service | N/A | Yes | [1985] AC 374 | United Kingdom | Cited for the grounds for judicial review: illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation | N/A | Yes | [1948] 1KB 223 | United Kingdom | Cited for the definition of Wednesbury unreasonableness. |
| Chng Suan Tze v Minister of Home Affairs and Ors | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] SLR 132 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proportionality is subsumed under irrationality in Singapore law. |
| Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore | N/A | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 934 | Singapore | Cited for the factors the court is entitled to have regard to in the leave to apply stage, including whether the application would serve any useful purpose or was premature. |
| Tan Eng Chye v Director of Prisons | N/A | No | [2004] 2 SLR 640 | Singapore | Cited and distinguished regarding the application of Wednesbury unreasonableness. |
| Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical Council | N/A | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 274 | Singapore | Cited regarding the interpretation of complaints and charges in disciplinary proceedings and whether the SMC had acted ultra vires its powers of inquiry. |
| Ho Paul v Singapore Medical Council | N/A | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR 780 | Singapore | Cited regarding professional misconduct and the inquiry into management plans for patients. |
| Low Cze Hong v Singapore Medical Council | N/A | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR 612 | Singapore | Cited regarding the role of the SMC Ethical Code in defining acceptable standards of professional conduct. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | N/A | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 507 | Singapore | Cited regarding the standard of proof for leave to apply for judicial review. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 53 r 1(2) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 53 r 1(3) | Singapore |
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 53 r 1(6) | Singapore |
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) s 40 | Singapore |
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) s 41(3) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial review
- Singapore Medical Council
- Subutex
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Complaints Committee
- Medical Registration Act
- Prescribing practice
- Leave to apply
- Prematurity
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Singapore Medical Council
- Subutex
- Medical Registration Act
- Administrative Law
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Medical Regulation
- Judicial Review
17. Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Regulatory Law
- Medical Law
- Disciplinary Proceedings