Marplan Private Limited v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of High Court Decision
Marplan Private Limited applied for judicial review to quash a decision by Lee Seiu Kin J in the High Court, which had allowed an appeal against a District Court's judgment in favor of Marplan in a contract dispute with Raffles Gymnastics Academy (S) Pte Ltd. Andrew Ang J dismissed the application, holding that a High Court judge's decision is not subject to judicial review and that the application was an abuse of process.
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 judicial review to quash a High Court decision was dismissed. The court held that a High Court judge's decision is not reviewable.
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’s Chambers Linda Esther Foo Hui Ling of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Marplan Private Limited | Applicant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | Glen Koh of Glen Koh |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Ang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Khoo Boo Jin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Linda Esther Foo Hui Ling | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Glen Koh | Glen Koh |
4. Facts
- Marplan Private Limited sought judicial review of a High Court decision.
- The High Court had allowed an appeal against a District Court judgment in favor of Marplan.
- The District Court had ordered Raffles Gymnastics Academy (S) Pte Ltd to pay Marplan $45,656.85.
- The High Court reduced the judgment sum by $26,366.38.
- The Applicant was refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
- The Applicant filed a new affidavit on 21 January 2013 furnishing evidence of the manufacturer’s price increase.
5. Formal Citations
- Marplan Private Limited v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 166 of 2013, [2013] SGHC 80
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Magistrate’s Court Suit No 8131 commenced | |
| Lee J allowed the appeal | |
| Applicant applied to Lee J for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but was refused | |
| Applicant took out Summons No 430 of 2013, seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal | |
| Application dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Susceptibility of High Court Decision to Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court held that the decision of a High Court judge acting in that capacity is not reviewable.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
- [2011] SGHC 131
- [1981] AC 374
- [1987] SLR(R) 213
- [1942] 1 KB 281
- [1998] 2 SLR(R) 961
- [2006] 4 SLR(R) 398
- [1999] 2 SLR(R) 756
- [2006] 4 SLR(R) 934
- [1985–1986] SLR(R) 7
- [1997] QB 911
- (2008) 82 ALJR 1221
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found the application to be egregious and an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1999] 2 SLR(R) 756
- (2008) 82 ALJR 1221
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Order
- Affirmation of District Judge’s Judgment
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 131 | Singapore | Cited for the test for granting leave to apply for a quashing order. |
| Re Racal Communications Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1981] AC 374 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that judicial review is available as a remedy for mistakes of law made by inferior courts and tribunals only. |
| Wong Hong Toy v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 213 | Singapore | Cited with approval of Lord Diplock’s dicta in Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374. |
| The King v Wandsworth Justices, ex parte Read | Unknown | Yes | [1942] 1 KB 281 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of an extreme situation where judicial review may be granted for inferior courts. |
| Bright Impex v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 961 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is limited to jurisdiction over the Subordinate Courts. |
| Tee Kok Boon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 398 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that each High Court has co-ordinate jurisdiction and one High Court cannot exercise revisionary or supervisory jurisdiction over another. |
| Poh Soon Kiat v Hotel Ramada of Nevada (trading as Tropicana Resort & Casino) | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 756 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that no High Court sits in an appellate, revisionary or supervisory jurisdiction over another High Court. |
| Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 934 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between the powers that a superior court exercises in judicial reviews and appeals. |
| Abdul Wahab bin Sulaiman v Commandant, Tanglin Detention Barracks | Unknown | Yes | [1985–1986] SLR(R) 7 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where courts are expressly declared by statute to be superior courts, the High Court has no supervisory jurisdiction over them. |
| Regina v Peterborough Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Dowler | Unknown | Yes | [1997] QB 911 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the error in law or procedural unfairness was cured in the appeal, then the result of the appeal would render the issue as to the impact of the error of law or procedural unfairness in the first trial academic. |
| Burrell v The Queen | High Court of Australia | Yes | (2008) 82 ALJR 1221 | Australia | Cited for the importance of maintaining finality in court decisions. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
| O 53 r 1(3) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 27(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 27(4) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 3 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| s 9 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| s 2 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| s 29(3) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| s 10(3) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| s 34(2)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| s 34(2B) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| s 28A of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act | Singapore |
| Customs Act (Cap 70, 1995 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial Review
- Quashing Order
- Supervisory Jurisdiction
- Subordinate Courts
- Abuse of Process
- Leave to Appeal
- Superior Court
- Inferior Court
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- High Court
- Subordinate Courts
- Supervisory Jurisdiction
- Abuse of Process
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Abuse of Process | 70 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
| Evidence Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Judicial Review
- Civil Procedure
- Courts
- Appeals