Manjit Singh v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Disciplinary Tribunal Appointment

Manjit Singh and Sree Govind Menon appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore on March 14, 2013, against a High Court decision dismissing their application for leave to apply for a quashing order regarding the Chief Justice's appointment of Mr. G.P. Selvam as chairman of the Disciplinary Tribunal. The Appellants argued that the appointment was subject to judicial review and that there was bias. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the Chief Justice's decision was amenable to judicial review, the Appellants had not established sufficient grounds to warrant leave for judicial review.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal chairman. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for judicial review.

1.7 Decision Date

13 March 2013

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Attorney-General	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Lim Ming Yi of Attorney-General’s Chambers Low Siew Ling of Attorney-General’s Chambers Asanthi Mendis of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost
Sree Govind Menon	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Judith Prakash	Judge	No
Andrew Ang	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lim Ming Yi	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Low Siew Ling	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Asanthi Mendis	Attorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

A complaint was lodged against the Appellants with the Law Society.
The Chief Justice appointed Mr. G.P. Selvam as chairman of the Disciplinary Tribunal.
The Appellants objected to Mr. Selvam's appointment, alleging bias.
The Chief Justice reviewed the objections but upheld Mr. Selvam's appointment.
The Appellants sought leave to apply for a quashing order against the Chief Justice's decision.
The High Court dismissed the application for leave.
The Appellants appealed against the High Court's decision.

5. Formal Citations

Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 70 of 2012, [2013] SGCA 22
Re Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another, , [2012] 4 SLR 81

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-12-01	Complaint lodged with the Law Society against the Appellants
2011-10-04	Inquiry Committee prepared a report
2012-01-11	Appellants furnished with a copy of the Report
2012-01-19	Appellants wrote to the CJ to convey their concerns in relation to the Report
2012-02-03	Law Society wrote to the CJ seeking the appointment of a DT to investigate the Complaint
2012-02-09	CJ appointed a DT with Mr Thean Lip Ping as president and Mr Tan Chuan Thye as member
2012-02-13	DT Secretariat notified the Appellants of the DT's composition
2012-02-13	Appellants wrote to the CJ to object to the appointment of Mr Thean
2012-02-16	CJ revoked Mr Thean’s appointment and appointed Mr Selvam in his place
2012-02-27	Appellants wrote two letters to the CJ objecting to Mr Selvam’s appointment
2012-02-29	DT Secretariat informed the Appellants that their objections to Mr Selvam were not accepted
2012-02-29	Appellants replied stating that they were “shocked” with the CJ’s decision not to accede to their request
2012-03-02	DT Secretariat informed the Appellants that the CJ had reviewed the matter and had decided that Mr Selvam’s appointment would stand
2012-04-02	Appellants attended a pre-hearing conference before the DT
2012-04-25	Appellants wrote to the CJ, enclosing the transcript of the PHC, alleging that Mr Selvam was biased
2012-04-27	DT Secretariat informed the Appellants that the CJ had found no basis to replace Mr Selvam
2012-05-09	Appellants filed Originating Summons No 443 of 2012
2013-03-14	Appeal dismissed

7. Legal Issues

Amenability of Chief Justice's decision to judicial review
- Outcome: The court held that the Chief Justice's decision to appoint the chairman of the Disciplinary Tribunal was amenable to judicial review.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2012] 1 SLR 701
Bias and apparent bias
- Outcome: The court found no basis to claim that there was a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion that the chairman had pre-judged the charges against the Appellants.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576
Breach of natural justice
- Outcome: The court found no breach of natural justice in the Chief Justice's decision-making process.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1994] 1 AC 531

8. Remedies Sought

Quashing order of the Chief Justice's decision
Stay of the Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings

9. Cause of Actions

Application for leave to apply for a quashing order

10. Practice Areas

Appeals
Disciplinary Proceedings

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Re Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another	High Court	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 81	Singapore	Cited as the grounds of decision of the High Court judge being appealed against.
Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 1 SLR 701	Singapore	Cited by the Attorney-General to argue that the CJ's decision was 'ministerial' and therefore not amenable to judicial review. The court distinguished this case.
Council of Civil Service Unions and others v Minister for the Civil Service	House of Lords	Yes	[1985] 1 AC 374	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that powers which are not conferred by statute may still be amenable to judicial review.
Regina v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, Ex parte Datafin plc and another	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1987] 1 QB 815	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that powers which are not conferred by statute may still be amenable to judicial review.
Yeap Wai Kong v Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2012] 3 SLR 565	Singapore	Cited for the principle that powers which are not conferred by statute may still be amenable to judicial review.
Mohit v Director of Public Prosecutions of Mauritius	Privy Council	Yes	[2006] 1 WLR 3343	Mauritius	Cited for the principle that the mere fact that a power stems from statute should not necessarily mean that it is amenable to judicial review.
Regina (Beer (trading as Hammer Trout Farm)) v Hampshire Farmers’ Markets Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 1 WLR 233	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the question whether the decision of a body is amenable to judicial review requires a careful consideration of the nature of the power and function that has been exercised to see whether the decision has a sufficient public element.
Hetherington v Security Export Company, Limited	Privy Council	Yes	[1924] AC 988	Canada	Cited by the Respondent to support the proposition that ministerial powers are necessarily not amenable to judicial review. The court found that this case did not support the Respondent's proposition.
Chief Building Surveyor v Makhanlall & Co Ltd	Federal Court	Yes	[1968–1970] SLR(R) 460	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a quashing order was available against a decision which was purely administrative.
The King v Electricity Commissioners	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1924] 1 KB 171	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that quashing and prohibiting orders were general remedies for the judicial control of both judicial and administrative decisions.
Ridge v Baldwin	House of Lords	Yes	[1964] AC 40	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that powers of decision must be exercised lawfully.
Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs and others and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1988] 2 SLR(R) 525	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the rule of law requires that all legal powers be subject to limits and it is the courts’ constitutional role to ensure that those limits are observed.
Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 872	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the rule of law requires that all legal powers be subject to limits and it is the courts’ constitutional role to ensure that those limits are observed.
Lloyd and others v McMahon	House of Lords	Yes	[1987] 1 AC 625	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the requirements of fairness depend on the character of the decision-making body, the kind of decision it has to make and the statutory or other framework in which it operates.
Registrar of Vehicles v Komoco Motors Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR(R) 340	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the requirements of fairness depend on the character of the decision-making body, the kind of decision it has to make and the statutory or other framework in which it operates.
Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs and others	High Court	Yes	[1988] 2 SLR(R) 30	Singapore	Cited for the principle that judicial review is concerned with the legality of any aspect or any decision made in the exercise of executive discretionary powers.
Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 133	Singapore	Cited for the test to satisfy the merits test at the leave stage for judicial review.
Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew and another and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 576	Singapore	Cited for the test of apparent bias.
Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 1189	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there must be credible grounds for raising a challenge of apparent bias.
Marta Stefan v General Medical Council	Privy Council	Yes	[1999] 1 WLR 1293	England and Wales	Cited by the Appellants for the argument that the CJ should have provided reasons for his decision. The court distinguished this case.
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Doody	House of Lords	Yes	[1994] 1 AC 531	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that there was no general common law duty to give reasons.
Subbiah Pillai v Wong Meng Meng and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR(R) 556	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the requirements of natural justice in relation to the IC were less stringent than those which applied to the DT.
Najar Singh v Government of Malaysia & Anor	Privy Council	Yes	[1976] 1 MLJ 203	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the right to be heard need not be oral.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Section 90(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Section 91A of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Judicial review
Disciplinary Tribunal
Chief Justice
Bias
Apparent bias
Natural justice
Leave to appeal
Quashing order
Legal Profession Act

15.2 Keywords

Judicial review
Disciplinary Tribunal
Bias
Singapore
Legal Profession

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	90
Legal Profession Act	90
Judicial Review	80
Administrative Law	70
Disciplinary Tribunal	60
Civil Procedure	50

16. Subjects

Judicial Review
Administrative Law
Legal Profession
Disciplinary Proceedings