Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council: Judicial Review of Disciplinary Committee Appointment

In Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council, the High Court of Singapore heard an application for judicial review of the Singapore Medical Council's decision to appoint a second disciplinary committee after the first recused itself. The applicant sought a quashing order, a prohibiting order, and a declaration that certain amendment regulations were void. The court, presided over by Philip Pillai J, dismissed all applications, finding no illegality, bias, or irrationality in the SMC's actions.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Applications dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Judicial Review

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Judicial review of SMC's decision to appoint a second disciplinary committee after the first recused itself. Application dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Singapore Medical CouncilRespondentStatutory BoardApplication DismissedWon
LIM MEY LEE SUSANApplicantIndividualApplication DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Philip PillaiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lim Wei LeeWong Partnership LLP
Alvin YeoWong Partnership LLP
Melanie HoWong Partnership LLP
Sugene AngWong Partnership LLP
Jolyn de KozaWong Partnership LLP
Lee Eng BengRajah & Tann LLP
Bernice LooAllen & Gledhill LLP
Elizabeth WuRajah & Tann LLP
Christine HuangRajah & Tann LLP
Tammy LowRajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Ministry of Health, Brunei raised concerns about the Applicant's invoices.
  2. The Ministry of Health, Singapore conducted an investigation and searches of the Applicant's clinics.
  3. A complaint was filed against the Applicant by the Senior Director of Health Regulation Division.
  4. The Complaints Committee ordered a formal inquiry by a disciplinary committee.
  5. The 1st Disciplinary Committee recused itself after a submission of no case to answer.
  6. The Singapore Medical Council revoked the appointment of the 1st Disciplinary Committee.
  7. The Singapore Medical Council appointed a 2nd Disciplinary Committee to hear the complaint.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council, Originating Summons No 1252 of 2010, [2011] SGHC 133

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Ministry of Health, Brunei expressed concerns about Applicant's invoices.
Searches conducted at Applicant’s private clinics.
Complaint filed against the Applicant by Dr. Tan Chor Hiang.
Applicant invited to provide a written explanation.
Applicant provided a written explanation.
Complaints Committee ordered a formal inquiry.
Applicant given notice of 94 charges.
1st Disciplinary Committee recused itself.
Amendments to the Medical Registration Act came into effect.
SMC sent email regarding revocation of 1st Disciplinary Committee.
SMC decided to revoke the appointment of the 1st Disciplinary Committee.
SMC email proposed composition of the 2nd Disciplinary Committee.
SMC appointed the 2nd Disciplinary Committee.
Applicant's lawyers informed of the appointment of the 2nd Disciplinary Committee.
Further amendments to the Medical Registration Act came into effect.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Illegality
    • Outcome: The court found no illegality in the SMC's decision to appoint the 2nd Disciplinary Committee.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unlawful fettering of statutory discretion
      • Failure to comply with statutory requirements
  2. Bias
    • Outcome: The court found no evidence of actual bias or reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the SMC.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Actual bias
      • Reasonable apprehension of bias
      • Conflict of interest
  3. Wednesbury Irrationality
    • Outcome: The court found that the SMC's decision was not Wednesbury irrational.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court found that the S 528/2010 Amendment Regulations were not contrary to natural justice in this case.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Quashing Order
  2. Prohibiting Order
  3. Declaration

9. Cause of Actions

  • Judicial Review

10. Practice Areas

  • Regulatory Law
  • Healthcare Law
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
ACC v CITHigh CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 273SingaporeCited for the principle that judicial review is concerned with the process by which a decision is made, not the merits of the decision.
Christine Woods v The General Medical CouncilHigh Court of JusticeYes[2002] EWHC 1484England and WalesCited for the principles underlying the General Medical Council's procedures, balancing public protection, professional reputation, and safeguards for practitioners.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury CorporationCourt of AppealYes[1948] 1 KB 223England and WalesCited for the principle of Wednesbury irrationality in judicial review.
Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2011] SGCA 9SingaporeCited for the core common law principles of judicial review, including illegality and procedural fairness.
Lloyd and others v McMahonHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 625England and WalesCited for the principle that the requirements of fairness depend on the decision-making body, the kind of decision, and the statutory framework.
Registrar of Vehicles v Komoco Motors Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 340SingaporeCited for the principle that an administrative agency must not fetter its own power or abrogate it to another agency.
Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical CouncilCourt of AppealYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 553SingaporeCited for the approach in determining whether a statutory requirement is mandatory or directory.
Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 115SingaporeCited for the view that the requirement of an immediate appointment under s 41(3) of the MRA was directory and not mandatory.
London and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District CouncilHouse of LordsYes[1980] 1 WLR 182ScotlandCited for the approach to abandon the dichotomy of mandatory/directory requirements in favour of characterising the approach as being within a spectrum.
Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v LannonCourt of AppealYes[1969] 1 QB 577England and WalesCited for the principle that justice must be rooted in confidence and the test for reasonable apprehension of bias.
Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant KulkarniHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 85SingaporeCited for the legal test for reasonable apprehension of bias.
Lionel James De Souza v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 552SingaporeCited for the principle that the standard of proof of suspicion of bias may vary depending on the context.
R v West Midlands and North West Mental Health Review TribunalCourt of AppealYes[2004] EWCA Civ 311England and WalesCited for the principles to be deduced from recent authorities in order to determine whether there was bias in a case where actual bias is not alleged.
Hannam v Bradford City CouncilHigh CourtYes[1970] 1 WLR 937England and WalesCited for the principle that inclusion in a fact-finding decision could in principle infringe the fairness/natural justice standards.
Re Chuang Wei PingHigh CourtYes[1993] 3 SLR(R) 357SingaporeCited for the principle that inclusion in a fact-finding decision could in principle infringe the fairness/natural justice standards.
R v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, ex p HookHigh CourtYes[1976] 1 WLR 1052England and WalesCited for the principle that the presence of in-house counsel in the absence of the concurrent presence of the defence counsel, was ill-judged.
Regina v General Medical Council ex p TothHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 WLR 2209England and WalesCited for the function of the complaints committee under s 41 of the MRA.
Low Cze Hong v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 612SingaporeCited for considerations of unfairness, prejudice and oppression in support of her application for a Prohibiting Order.
Wee Harry Lee v Law Society of SingaporeHigh CourtYes[1983-1984] SLR(R) 768SingaporeCited for the legal principles applicable to disciplinary proceedings.
Law Society of Singapore v Nathan EdmundHigh CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 905SingaporeCited for the legal principles applicable to disciplinary proceedings.
Draper v British Optical AssociationHigh CourtYes[1938] 1 All ER 115England and WalesCited for the principle that the court will determine matters of this kind in a quia timet action.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 53 r 3

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174 2004 Rev Ed) s 5(f)Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174 2004 Rev Ed) s 46(7)Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174 2004 Rev Ed) s 41(3)Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174 2004 Rev Ed) s 42(5)Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174 2004 Rev Ed) s 45Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174 2004 Rev Ed) s 46(16)Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174 2004 Rev Ed) s 12Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174 2004 Rev Ed) s 12(5)Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174 2004 Rev Ed) s 9(1)Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174 2004 Rev Ed) s 40(11)Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174 2004 Rev Ed) s 70Singapore
Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act (Cap 248, 1999 Rev Ed) s 12Singapore
Medical Registration (Amendment) Act 2010 (Act No 1 of 2010)Singapore
Medical Registration (Amendment) Act 2010 (Act No 1 of 2010) s 41(3)Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 33Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 16(1)(c)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Judicial Review
  • Disciplinary Committee
  • Singapore Medical Council
  • Recusal
  • Illegality
  • Bias
  • Wednesbury Irrationality
  • Natural Justice
  • Medical Ethics
  • Professional Misconduct

15.2 Keywords

  • Singapore Medical Council
  • Judicial Review
  • Disciplinary Committee
  • Medical Profession
  • Professional Ethics

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Professional Medical Ethics90
Medical Law85
Medical Disciplinary Proceedings75
Administrative Law70
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility60

16. Subjects

  • Medical Disciplinary Proceedings
  • Administrative Decision Making
  • Professional Regulation