Jeyaretnam v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Loan to IMF under Article 144 of Constitution
Kenneth Andrew Jeyaretnam, Secretary-General of the Reform Party, appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore against the High Court's decision in Originating Summons No 657 of 2012. Jeyaretnam sought judicial review of the Government's decision, through the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), to grant a contingent US$4 billion bilateral loan to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), arguing it contravened Article 144 of the Constitution. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no prima facie case of reasonable suspicion and that Jeyaretnam lacked locus standi.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Kenneth Jeyaretnam sought judicial review of Singapore's loan to the IMF, alleging it violated Article 144 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Aurill Kam of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jeremy Yeo Shenglong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Aedit Abdullah of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jurena Chan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Vanessa Yeo of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Kenneth Andrew Jeyaretnam of Independent Practitioner |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Quentin Loh | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Aurill Kam | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jeremy Yeo Shenglong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Aedit Abdullah | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jurena Chan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Vanessa Yeo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kenneth Andrew Jeyaretnam | Independent Practitioner |
4. Facts
- The Government of Singapore, through MAS, offered a contingent US$4 billion bilateral loan to the IMF.
- The Appellant, Secretary-General of the Reform Party, challenged the loan, claiming it contravened Article 144 of the Constitution.
- The Appellant argued the loan required Parliamentary and Presidential approval, which was not obtained.
- The High Court dismissed the originating summons, finding Article 144 inapplicable and the Appellant lacked locus standi.
- The Appellant argued the loan was an implied guarantee and a contingent liability, thus falling under Article 144.
- The MAS is a statutory corporation listed under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution and all its shares are owned by the Government.
5. Formal Citations
- Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 154 of 2012, [2013] SGCA 56
- Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General, , [2013] 1 SLR 619
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| MAS announced Singapore would make the Loan to the IMF. | |
| Originating Summons No 657 of 2012 filed. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Locus Standi
- Outcome: The court held that the Appellant did not have locus standi to challenge Article 144.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficient interest
- Special damage
- Public right
- Private right
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 4 SLR 476
- [1988] 2 MLJ 12
- [1978] AC 435
- [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112
- [2013] SGCA 39
- Interpretation of Article 144 of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court held that Article 144 applies only to the giving of guarantees and raising of loans, not the giving of loans.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Giving of a loan vs raising of a loan
- Implied guarantee
- Contingent liability
8. Remedies Sought
- Prohibiting Order
- Quashing Order
- Declaration
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Judicial Review
- Constitutional Litigation
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited for the stringent locus standi threshold criteria when an applicant seeks to enforce a public right. |
| Intertek India Private Ltd. v State of Karnataka | Karnataka High Court | Yes | Intertek India Private Ltd. v State of Karnataka (2 August, 2012) | India | Cited by the appellant for the proposition that it is possible to raise a letter of credit, which is equivalent to a guarantee. |
| Vellama v Attorney General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] SGCA 39 | Singapore | Cited for elucidating the requirement on standing where public rights were concerned. |
| Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang | Malaysian Supreme Court | Yes | [1988] 2 MLJ 12 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the requirements for locus standi when a public right is involved. |
| Gouriet and others v H.M. Attorney-General | House of Lords | Yes | [1978] AC 435 | England | Cited for the test that an applicant seeking a declaration had to show that it related to a right personally vested in him, and that he had a “real interest” in it. |
| Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that an applicant seeking a declaration had to show that it related to a right personally vested in him, and that he had a “real interest” in it. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v Minister for Information and the Arts | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 627 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that “sufficient interest” as it was used in the UK after 1977 was “not found anywhere else in our O 53” and hence the law as it stood in Singapore was that of pre-1977 English law. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v Minister for Information and the Arts | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 294 | Singapore | Cited for the court finding that the appellants had the locus standi to pursue the matter because what was complained of was an alleged violation of their citizen’s constitutional right under Art 15 of the Constitution to profess, practise and propagate their religion. |
| Eng Foong Ho v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 542 | Singapore | Cited for establishing that the locus standi requirements were to be the same across the different remedies sought, regardless of their historical roots. |
| R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-employed and Small Businesses Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 | England | Cited for observations made by the English House of Lords in the seminal case regarding what sorts of questions the courts should be considering at the locus standi stage. |
| Boyce v Paddington BC | Court of Chancery | Yes | Boyce v Paddington BC [1903] 1 Ch 109 | England | Cited for setting out the two exceptions to the strict rule that would allow a plaintiff to sue for declaratory or injunctive relief without the interposition of the Attorney-General. |
| Pudsey Coal Gas Co v Bradford Corporation | Court of Chancery | Yes | Pudsey Coal Gas Co v Bradford Corporation (1873) LR 15 Eq 167 | England | Cited to show that suits were often dismissed “for want of an equity”, causing the courts to lament the fact that it lacked authority to give remedies where defendant bodies were clearly exceeding their statutory powers. |
| Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1995 | High Court | Yes | Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1995 [1995] 1 SLR(R) 803 | Singapore | Cited as an example of the President referring a question for an advisory opinion to a tribunal of three judges pursuant to Art 100 of the Constitution. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Article 144 of the Constitution of Singapore | Singapore |
| Monetary Authority of Singapore Act (Cap 186, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Financial Procedure Act (Cap 109, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Bretton Woods Agreements Act (Cap 27, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial review
- Locus standi
- Article 144
- Constitution of Singapore
- Monetary Authority of Singapore
- International Monetary Fund
- Contingent loan
- Implied guarantee
- Contingent liability
- Official Foreign Reserves
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial review
- Article 144
- Constitution
- Loan to IMF
- Locus standi
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Judicial Review | 90 |
| Constitutional Law | 85 |
| Locus Standi | 75 |
| Administrative Law | 70 |
| Contingent Liability | 60 |
| Banking and Finance | 50 |
| International Law | 40 |
| Commercial Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
- Financial Law
- Judicial Review