UDL Marine v Jurong Town Corp: Lease Renewal Refusal & Judicial Review
UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd applied to the High Court for leave to seek judicial review of Jurong Town Corporation's (JTC) decision to refuse renewal of their lease. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that JTC's decision was not susceptible to judicial review. The court considered arguments regarding delay in application, susceptibility to review, and prima facie case of reasonable suspicion. The court ultimately found that JTC's decision was an exercise of private contractual rights, not public law functions.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
UDL Marine's application for judicial review of JTC's refusal to renew its lease was dismissed, as the decision was not subject to judicial review.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Jurong Town Corp | Respondent | Statutory Board | Application dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff applied to JTC to renew its lease of premises at 3 Benoi Road.
- JTC rejected the plaintiff's application to renew the lease.
- Plaintiff claimed EDB persuaded it to call off assignment of lease.
- Plaintiff alleged JTC required a minimum investment for waterfront land leases.
- Plaintiff alleged neighbors obtained lease renewals with lower investment commitments.
- JTC claimed it considered a range of factors, not just fixed asset investment.
- Plaintiff commenced proceedings against JTC claiming wrongful refusal to renew lease.
5. Formal Citations
- UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town Corp, Originating Summons No 1133 of 2010/R, [2011] SGHC 45
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff applied to JTC to renew the Lease. | |
| Plaintiff applied to JTC to renew the Lease. | |
| JTC informed the plaintiff that it would not be renewing the Lease. | |
| JTC advised that EDB and JTC were unable to support the Renewal Application. | |
| Plaintiff proposed taking over lease of land located at 17 Pandan Road. | |
| Plaintiff met with representatives of JTC and EDB. | |
| Plaintiff commenced proceedings against JTC in Suit No 502 of 2010. | |
| Plaintiff discovered neighbors obtained lease renewals with lower investment commitments. | |
| Plaintiff found out JTC's required minimum fixed asset investment was $100m. | |
| Plaintiff filed the application for leave to apply for a quashing order and a mandatory order. | |
| High Court dismissed the application. |
7. Legal Issues
- Susceptibility to Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court held that JTC's decision to reject the lease renewal was not susceptible to judicial review because it was an exercise of private contractual rights, not public law functions.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Source of power
- Nature of power
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 1 SLR(R) 133
- [1987] QB 815
- [2009] 3 HKLRD 215
- Delay in Application for Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had adequately accounted for the delay in making the application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonable explanation for delay
- Time limit for application
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 2 SLR(R) 568
- Irrationality
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had raised a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion of irrationality.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Inconsistent application of criteria
- Extraneous considerations
- Bad faith
- Related Cases:
- [1948] 1 KB 223
- Legitimate Expectation
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had raised a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion of deprivation of a legitimate expectation that the lease would be renewed.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Deprivation of legitimate expectation
- Procedural fairness
- Related Cases:
- [1985] AC 274
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Order
- Mandatory Order
- Stay of JTC's Decision
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- Marine
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v Minister for Information and the Arts | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 627 | Singapore | Cited regarding the requirement to serve the ex parte originating summons on the Attorney-General. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 294 | Singapore | Cited for the test for whether leave should be granted in an application under Order 53, rule 1 of the Rules of Court. |
| Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Cited for the test for whether leave should be granted in an application under Order 53, rule 1 of the Rules of Court and for determining whether a decision is susceptible to judicial review. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the approach to be taken at the leave stage of an application for judicial review. |
| Pang Chen Suan v Commissioner for Labour | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 648 | Singapore | Cited regarding the purpose of requiring leave for judicial review applications. |
| Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 115 | Singapore | Cited regarding the difficulties of applying the Colin Chan Test if the court deciding on the leave application has had a contested hearing of the application. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 568 | Singapore | Cited regarding the time limit for applying for a quashing order and the implied acceptance that a leave application for a mandatory order should also be made without undue delay. |
| O’Reilly v Mackman | House of Lords | Yes | [1983] 2 AC 237 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the public interest in good administration and the need for timely challenges to decisions. |
| Regina v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, Ex Parte Datafin plc And Another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] QB 815 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the Nature Test for determining whether a decision is susceptible to judicial review. |
| Anderson Asphalt Ltd v The Secretary for Justice | Court of First Instance | Yes | [2009] 3 HKLRD 215 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the fact that a public authority taking into account public interest considerations does not necessarily mean that the authority’s decision is susceptible to judicial review. |
| Anderson Asphalt and others v The Secretary for Justice | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] HKCA 185 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the Hong Kong government's refusal to renew special purpose leases. |
| Hong Kong and China Gas Co Ltd v Director of Lands | Unknown | Yes | [1997] HKC 502 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the Hong Kong government's refusal to renew special purpose leases. |
| Kam Lan Koon v Secretary for Justice | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 3 HKC 591 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the Hong Kong government's refusal to renew special purpose leases. |
| Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Wednesbury Test for irrationality. |
| Mir Hassan bin Abdul Rahman and another v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 134 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Wednesbury Test for irrationality. |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1948] 1 KB 223 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the Wednesbury Test for irrationality. |
| Council of Civil Service Unions and others v Minister for the Civil Service | House of Lords | Yes | [1985] AC 274 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the definition of legitimate expectation in administrative law. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 53 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
| O 53, r 1(6) of the Rules |
| O 53, r 1 of the Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Jurong Town Corporation Act (Cap 150, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 53, r 1(6) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 12(2)(d) of the JTC Act | Singapore |
| s 12(1) of the JTC Act | Singapore |
| O 53, r 1(3) of the Rules | Singapore |
| O 53, r 1(5) of the Rules | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Lease Renewal
- Judicial Review
- Statutory Board
- Prima Facie Case
- Reasonable Suspicion
- Irrationality
- Legitimate Expectation
- Public Law Function
- Private Contractual Rights
- Fixed Asset Investment
15.2 Keywords
- lease
- renewal
- judicial review
- JTC
- UDL Marine
- Singapore
- administrative law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Judicial Review | 90 |
| Leases | 80 |
| Administrative Law | 75 |
| Property Law | 60 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
| Company Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Landlord and Tenant Law
- Public Law
- Civil Procedure