Manjit Singh v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Chief Justice's Refusal to Revoke Disciplinary Tribunal Appointment
Manjit Singh and another appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 19 August 2013, against the High Court's dismissal of their application for judicial review of the Chief Justice's refusal to revoke the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal inquiring into their alleged misconduct. The appellants sought a mandatory order compelling the Chief Justice to revoke the appointment. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Chief Justice did not abdicate his duty and was not in breach of any duty to provide reasons for his decision.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Oral Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal for judicial review of the Chief Justice's refusal to revoke a Disciplinary Tribunal's appointment after a complaint withdrawal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Aurill Kam Su Chuen of Attorney-General’s Chambers Russell Low Tzeh Shyian of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Law Society | Other | Association | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Judge | No |
| Andrew Ang | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Aurill Kam Su Chuen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Russell Low Tzeh Shyian | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| P E Ashokan | KhattarWong LLP |
4. Facts
- The Appellants applied for judicial review of the Chief Justice's refusal to revoke the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal.
- The Disciplinary Tribunal was appointed to inquire into the alleged misconduct of the Appellants.
- The complaints against the Appellants were withdrawn by Ms Rankine.
- The Law Society did not object to the revocation of the Disciplinary Tribunal's appointment.
- The Chief Justice declined to revoke the appointment of the Disciplinary Tribunal.
- The Appellants argued that the Chief Justice had abdicated his duty and breached a duty to provide reasons for his decision.
5. Formal Citations
- Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 28 of 2013, [2013] SGCA 45
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellants sent a letter to the Chief Justice regarding the decision not to revoke the appointment of the Disciplinary Tribunal. | |
| Appellants were informed that the Chief Justice does not revoke the appointment of the Disciplinary Tribunal. | |
| Court of Appeal delivered the oral judgment dismissing the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Judicial Review of Chief Justice's Decision
- Outcome: The court held that the Appellants did not meet the threshold test for leave to seek judicial review.
- Category: Procedural
- Duty to Give Reasons for Administrative Decisions
- Outcome: The court held that there is no general duty to give reasons for administrative decisions.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
8. Remedies Sought
- Mandatory Order
- Quashing Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Administrative Law
- Appeals
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 308 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that a Disciplinary Tribunal, once seised of jurisdiction, is unaffected by the withdrawal of the initial complaint. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Rajagopal Shan | Singapore District Court | Yes | [1994] SGDSC 2 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that a Disciplinary Tribunal, once seised of jurisdiction, is unaffected by the withdrawal of the initial complaint. |
| Re Shan Rajagopal | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 60 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that a Disciplinary Tribunal, once seised of jurisdiction, is unaffected by the withdrawal of the initial complaint. |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp | King's Bench | Yes | [1938] 1 KB 223 | England and Wales | Cited for the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness. |
| Chng Suan Tze v Minister of Home Affairs and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness. |
| Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Doody | House of Lords | Yes | [1994] 1 AC 531 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that there is no general duty to give reasons for administrative decisions. |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] SGCA 22 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no general duty to give reasons for administrative decisions and that the Chief Justice's power under s 90(1) of the Legal Profession Act is administrative. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 53 r 1 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 90(3)(a) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 90(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 89(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial Review
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Chief Justice
- Legal Profession Act
- Wednesbury Unreasonableness
- Leave to Apply
- Revocation of Appointment
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Chief Justice
- Legal Profession Act
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Disciplinary Proceedings | 85 |
| Judicial Review | 75 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Legal Profession
- Judicial Review