Manjit Singh v Attorney-General: Application for Quashing Order Against Chief Justice's Order
Mr. Manjit Singh and Mr. Sree Govind Menon applied to the High Court of Singapore for leave to apply for a Quashing Order against an order made by the Chief Justice regarding the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal. The applicants, who are advocates and solicitors, objected to the appointment of certain members of the DT, alleging bias. The High Court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, dismissed the application, finding it misconceived in law and unsustainable on the facts. The court held that the Chief Justice's administrative decision was not subject to judicial review and that the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence of bias.
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
Application for a quashing order against the Chief Justice's order to appoint a Disciplinary Tribunal. Application dismissed due to misconceived law and unsustainable facts.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Low Siew Ling of Attorney-General’s Chambers Asanthi Mendis of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Sree Govind Menon | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Low Siew Ling | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Asanthi Mendis | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Applicants sought a Quashing Order against the Chief Justice’s order appointing a Disciplinary Tribunal.
- Applicants objected to the appointment of Mr. Thean Lip Ping and Mr. G P Selvam as presidents of the DT.
- Applicants alleged that Mr. Thean and Mr. G P Selvam were close to the spouse of Justice V.K. Rajah.
- Applicants claimed Mrs. V.K. Rajah influenced their replacement as lawyers in a case.
- Applicants' client replaced them with Rajah & Tann LLP after speaking with Mrs. V.K. Rajah.
- The Law Society received a complaint against the applicants from their former client.
5. Formal Citations
- Re Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another, Originating Summons No 443 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 138
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicants notified of Disciplinary Tribunal appointment. | |
| Applicants wrote to the Chief Justice objecting to the appointment of Mr. Thean Lip Ping. | |
| Chief Justice revoked the appointment of Mr. Thean Lip Ping and appointed Mr. G P Selvam. | |
| Applicants wrote to the Chief Justice objecting to the appointment of Mr. G P Selvam. | |
| Applicants wrote another letter to the Chief Justice objecting to the appointment of Mr. G P Selvam. | |
| DT Secretariat rejected the applicants’ request to replace Mr. G P Selvam. | |
| Chief Justice directed that the appointment of Mr. G P Selvam and Mr. Tan Chuan Thye shall stand. | |
| Application heard in High Court. | |
| Application dismissed. | |
| Appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Judicial Review of Chief Justice's Decision
- Outcome: The court held that the Chief Justice's decision to appoint the president of a Disciplinary Tribunal is an administrative act not amenable to judicial review.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Amenability of administrative acts to judicial review
- Appropriateness of judicial review under Order 53 of the Rules of Court
- Bias and Partiality
- Outcome: The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence of bias or partiality on the part of the appointed members of the Disciplinary Tribunal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Apparent bias
- Actual bias
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Order against the Chief Justice's order
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for a Quashing Order
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 701 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that allegations of bias should be directed against the members of the Disciplinary Committee, not the Director of Medical Services in appointing the Singapore Medical Council. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 53 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 90 of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 91A of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Quashing Order
- Judicial Review
- Bias
- Partiality
- Legal Profession Act
- Chief Justice
- Administrative Act
15.2 Keywords
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Judicial Review
- Bias
- Legal Profession Act
- Quashing Order
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 95 |
| Disciplinary Proceedings | 90 |
| Judicial Review | 80 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 75 |
| Duty of Candour | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Judicial Review
- Administrative Law