Borissik Svetlana v Urban Redevelopment Authority: Judicial Review of Land Planning Decision
In Borissik Svetlana v Urban Redevelopment Authority, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Mdm Borissik Svetlana's application for judicial review of the Urban Redevelopment Authority's decision to reject her plan to redevelop her semi-detached house into a detached bungalow. The court, presided over by Justice Tan Lee Meng, found that Mdm Borissik Svetlana had not exhausted all available remedies and that the URA's decision was not procedurally improper, illegal, or irrational. The court also rejected the applicant's claim of legitimate expectation.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Borissik Svetlana's application for judicial review of URA's decision to reject her redevelopment plan. The court found no procedural impropriety, illegality, or irrationality.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Borissik Svetlana | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Urban Redevelopment Authority | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Michael Hwang of Michael Hwang |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gopalan Raman | G R Law Corporation |
| Michael Hwang | Michael Hwang |
4. Facts
- The applicant and her husband are joint owners of a semi-detached house at No 2 Jalan Chengam.
- The applicant sought to demolish the semi-detached house and replace it with a detached bungalow.
- The URA rejected the application because the adjoining semi-detached house did not meet the minimum plot size requirement.
- The applicant did not appeal to the Minister against the decision of the URA within 60 days.
- The applicant claimed that she had a legitimate expectation that the proposal to redevelop No 2 would be approved.
- The URA had approved the redevelopment of No 3 Jalan Chengam, which had a plot size of 432.8m2 and the semi-detached house to which it was attached, namely No 4 Jalan Chengam, stands on 446.3m2 of land.
- The semi-detached house at No 7 Jalan Chengam and the house to which it was attached, namely No 8 Jalan Chengam, have plot sizes of 487 m2 and 500.7 m2 respectively.
5. Formal Citations
- Borissik Svetlana v Urban Redevelopment Authority, OS 116/2009, SUM 734/2009, [2009] SGHC 154
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Owners of original No 1 applied for and received written permission to reconstruct their existing single storey semi-detached house into a two-storey semi-detached house and to erect a two-storey detached house. | |
| Mr Sathivelu Suppiah complained that No 1A did not have a setback from his house and that this affected his privacy. | |
| The applicant purchased No 2. | |
| The applicant’s husband, Mr Low, applied through his architect, CSL Architects, to the URA for planning permission to redevelop No 2. | |
| The URA advised Mr Low’s architect that the proposal to build a detached house on No 2 could not be supported. | |
| Mr Raman requested the URA to review its decision. | |
| The URA replied to Mr Raman. | |
| The proposal to redevelop the said property was treated as withdrawn. | |
| The URA informed Mr Raman that his client may redesign and rebuild her existing semi-detached house such that “the abutment with the adjoining semi-detached house be confined to just the car porch and a room at the 1st or 2nd storey.” | |
| The applicant obtained leave to apply for a mandatory order to quash the said decision. | |
| Hearing of the parties. | |
| Application dismissed with costs. |
7. Legal Issues
- Judicial review of decision of public body concerning land planning and redevelopment
- Outcome: The court held that the application for judicial review should be dismissed.
- Category: Substantive
- Availability of declaratory relief under O 53 Rules of Court
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant should not have applied for a declaration as the courts are not empowered to grant a declaratory order with respect to applications brought under O 53 of the Rules of Court.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2008] SGHC 139
- Exhaustion of remedies
- Outcome: The court held that the application must be dismissed on the ground that the applicant had failed to exhaust her remedies before coming to court.
- Category: Procedural
- Whether ministerial bias to be inferred from potential conflict of interest of advisors
- Outcome: The court held that there was not a shred of evidence that had the applicant appealed, the Minister would not have acted impartially or that her appeal would not be treated fairly.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2007] SGHC 147
8. Remedies Sought
- Mandatory order to quash the URA’s decision
- Declaration that the approval granted for the redevelopment of the original No 1 Jalan Chengam is against the planning policy and principles of the URA
- Mandatory order that the URA unconditionally approves her redevelopment plan and refund the processing fee
- Damages to be assessed
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ung Yoke Hooi v AG | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 139 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the courts are not empowered to grant a declaratory order with respect to applications brought under O 53 of the Rules of Court. |
| R v Justices of Kingston | N/A | Yes | R v Justices of Kingston 86 LTR 589 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the court does not by mandamus direct any public body or anybody else upon whom a duty is cast “how and in what manner they are to perform their duty”. |
| Re San Development Co’s Application | N/A | Yes | [1969-1971] SLR 561 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the view that the court does not by mandamus direct any public body or anybody else upon whom a duty is cast “how and in what manner they are to perform their duty”. |
| R v Epping and Harlow General Commissioners, ex p Goldstraw | Court of Appeal | Yes | R v Epping and Harlow General Commissioners, ex p Goldstraw [1983] 3 All ER 257 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the courts will not normally grant public law remedies if the applicant has not exhausted alternative remedies available to him. |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Swati | Court of Appeal | Yes | R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Swati [1986] 1 WLR at 485 | N/A | Cited for the principle that where Parliament provides an appeal procedure, judicial review will have no place unless the applicant can distinguish his case from the type of case for which the appeal procedure was provided. |
| Re Wong Sin Yee | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 147 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the issue is not whether the person advising the Minister is biased but whether the Minister is biased. |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation | N/A | Yes | [1948] KB 223 | N/A | Cited for outlining the sense of irrationality. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR 568 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that mere suspicion is not sufficient to establish bad faith and that there must be sufficient evidence that establishes a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion of bad faith. |
| Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service | House of Lords | Yes | [1985] AC 374 | N/A | Cited for explaining illegality as a ground for judicial review. |
| Lines International Holding (S) Pte Ltd v Singapore Tourist Promotion Board | N/A | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 584 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the adoption of a general policy by a body exercising an administrative discretion is perfectly valid provided that certain conditions are met. |
| City Developments v Chief Assessor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] SGCA 29 | Singapore | Cited for approving the paragraph in Lines International Holding (S) Pte Ltd v Singapore Tourist Promotion Board [1997] 2 SLR 584. |
| Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans | N/A | Yes | [1982] 3 All ER 141 | N/A | Cited for the principle that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not with the decision itself. |
| Mohan Singh v AG | High Court | Yes | [1987] SGHC 31 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing Lord Brightman’s view in Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141. |
| Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service | House of Lords | Yes | [1985] AC 374 | N/A | Cited for the question of a legitimate expectation. |
| Re Seah Mooi Guat | N/A | Yes | [1988] SLR 726 | Singapore | Cited for adopting Lord Fraser’s approach in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service [1985] AC 374. |
| R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex p Coughlan | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] QB 213 | N/A | Cited for the principle that public bodies must be allowed to change their policies. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 53 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Planning Act (Cap 232, 1998, Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Planning Act (Cap 232, 1998, Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial review
- Urban Redevelopment Authority
- Land planning
- Detached house
- Semi-detached house
- Redevelopment
- Planning permission
- Exhaustion of remedies
- Ministerial bias
- Legitimate expectation
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial review
- URA
- Land planning
- Detached house
- Semi-detached house
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Judicial Review | 95 |
| Administrative Law | 90 |
| Land Law | 60 |
| Property Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Land Planning
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure