Manjit Singh v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Disciplinary Tribunal Appointment
Manjit Singh and Sree Govind Menon, advocates and solicitors, applied to the High Court of Singapore for judicial review of the Chief Justice's decision not to revoke the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal inquiring into misconduct charges against them. The application was dismissed by Justice Coomaraswamy, who found the applicants' contentions unarguable. The applicants were ordered to pay costs to the Attorney-General.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for judicial review of Chief Justice's decision not to revoke a Disciplinary Tribunal's appointment was dismissed with costs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Costs awarded | Won | Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General Low Siew Ling of Attorney-General |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed with costs | Lost | P E Ashokan of Law Society of Singapore |
| Sree Govind Menon | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed with costs | Lost | P E Ashokan of Law Society of Singapore |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vinodh Coomaraswamy | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Khoo Boo Jin | Attorney-General |
| Low Siew Ling | Attorney-General |
| P E Ashokan | Law Society of Singapore |
4. Facts
- Ms. Rankine filed a complaint of professional misconduct against Mr. Singh and Mr. Menon.
- The Chief Justice appointed a Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate the complaint.
- Ms. Rankine subsequently withdrew her complaint.
- The Law Society decided to continue the disciplinary proceedings despite the withdrawal.
- Mr. Singh and Mr. Menon requested the Chief Justice to revoke the Disciplinary Tribunal's appointment.
- The Chief Justice declined to revoke the appointment.
- The applicants applied for judicial review of the Chief Justice's decision.
5. Formal Citations
- Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 107 of 2013, [2013] SGHC 62
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ms. Bernadette Adeline Rankine complained of professional misconduct by Mr. Singh and Mr. Menon. | |
| Chief Justice appointed a Disciplinary Tribunal. | |
| Law Society submits written submissions for additional charge against the applicants. | |
| Ms. Rankine withdrew her complaint against Mr. Singh and Mr. Menon. | |
| Directions hearing held; Law Society indicated intention to continue disciplinary proceedings. | |
| Applicants initiated correspondence with the Law Society. | |
| Applicants initiated correspondence with the Chief Justice to revoke the Disciplinary Tribunal's appointment. | |
| Mr Singh and Mr Menon filed their application under O 53 r 1(2) of the Rules of Court. | |
| Chief Justice responded, stating the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal should take their course. | |
| Disciplinary Tribunal commenced its hearing; applicants sought an adjournment. | |
| Quentin Loh J granted a stay of the Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings until the hearing of the applicants’ leave application. | |
| Applicants wrote to the Chief Justice again to exercise his power under s 90(3)(a) of the Act and revoke the appointment of the Disciplinary Tribunal. | |
| Applicants wrote again to the Chief Justice, accusing the Disciplinary Tribunal President, Mr Selvam, of bias. | |
| The DT Secretariat informed Mr Singh and Mr Menon that the Chief Justice does not revoke the appointment of the Disciplinary Tribunal. | |
| Hearing of the applicants’ leave application. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Judicial Review of Chief Justice's Decision
- Outcome: The court held that the Chief Justice's decision was not unreasonable and there was no apparent bias.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Wednesbury unreasonableness
- Apparent bias
- Recusal of Judge
- Outcome: The court declined to recuse himself, finding no reasonable suspicion of bias.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Apparent bias
- Conflict of interest
- Watching Brief
- Outcome: The court allowed the Law Society to hold a watching brief.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Mandatory Order (mandamus) compelling the Chief Justice to exercise his power under Section 90(3) of the Legal Profession Act
- Order revoking the appointment of DT 2/2012
- Stay of DT 2/2012 pending the determination of the Applicants’ application for a Mandatory Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation | King's Bench | Yes | [1948] 1 KB 223 | England and Wales | Cited for the Wednesbury test of unreasonableness in judicial review. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd and another and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's discretion to permit a non-party to attend a hearing in chambers. |
| Re Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 81 | Singapore | Cited for allegations regarding VK Rajah JA and Mrs. Rajah's connection to the disciplinary proceedings. |
| Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 85 | Singapore | Cited for the legal test for apparent bias. |
| Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 156 | Singapore | Cited for the legal test for apparent bias and the characteristics of the fair-minded reasonable person. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an application to a judge to recuse himself must be based on credible grounds. |
| 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 principle that a claim of apparent bias must be based on substantially true and accurate facts. |
| Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties and another | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2000] 2 WLR 870 | England and Wales | Cited for principles relating to apparent bias, including the onus on the applicant and the judge's duty to consider the quality of the allegation. |
| Re Shan Rajagopal | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 60 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that disciplinary proceedings do not automatically end when the complainant withdraws the complaint. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 308 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that disciplinary proceedings do not automatically end when the complainant withdraws the complaint. |
| Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Cited for the test of whether a decision is susceptible to judicial review based on the source of the power. |
| Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 698 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for granting leave to apply for judicial review and the distinction between mandatory orders and declarations. |
| 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 test of an arguable case or a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in favor of granting public law remedies. |
| Inland Revenue Commissions v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1982] AC 617 | United Kingdom | Cited for the test of a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in judicial review. |
| Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service | House of Lords | Yes | [1985] AC 374 | United Kingdom | Cited for the grounds for judicial review: illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. |
| Lines International Holding (S) Pte Ltd v Singapore Tourist Promotion Board and another | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 52 | Singapore | Cited for the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness. |
| Ridge v Baldwin | House of Lords | Yes | [1964] AC 60 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the content of procedural obligations imposed on decision-makers. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 791 | Singapore | Cited regarding the expectation that a partner of a large law firm will know something about a matter. |
| Kang Ngah Wei v Commander of Traffic Police | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 14 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court can order the unsuccessful applicant to pay the costs of the party opposing the application. |
| Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 210 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court can order the unsuccessful applicant to pay the costs of the party opposing the application. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
| O 53 r 1(2) of the Rules of Court |
| O 53 r 1(3) of the Rules of Court |
| O 53 r 4 of the Rules of Court |
| O 53 r 2(1) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 90(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 89(1) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 90(1) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 91A of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 85(1A) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 85(6) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 85(8) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 85(10) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 86(7)(a) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 87(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 94(2) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 34(2)(d) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Accountants Act (Cap 2, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 48(5) of the Accountants Act (Cap 2, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 49(5) of the Accountants Act (Cap 2, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 50(1) of the Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 50(5) of the Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Architects Act (Cap 12, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| ss 31C(1) of the Architects Act (Cap 12, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| ss 31C(6) of the Architects Act (Cap 12, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Professional Engineers Act (Cap 253, 1992 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| ss 27(1) of the Professional Engineers Act (Cap 253, 1992 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| ss 27(3) of the Professional Engineers Act (Cap 253, 1992 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Art 97 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial Review
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Apparent Bias
- Wednesbury Unreasonableness
- Watching Brief
- Recusal
- Legal Profession Act
- Rules of Court
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Legal Profession
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Judicial Review | 85 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 80 |
| Administrative Law | 75 |
| Apparent bias | 70 |
| Costs | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Judicial Review
- Administrative Law