Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore: Breach of Contract, Torts, and Discovery Dispute

Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie sued the National University of Singapore (NUS) in the High Court of Singapore, alleging wrongful termination of her candidature for a Masters of Arts degree. She claimed breach of contract, misfeasance in public office, intimidation, and negligence. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of her discovery application and subsequent appeal, she sought written grounds for the decisions. Tan Siong Thye J dismissed her application for written grounds, finding no violation of constitutional rights or prejudice in the absence of written grounds, and ordered costs against her.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Originating Summons dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiff sued NUS for wrongly terminating her candidature. The court dismissed her application for written grounds of earlier decisions on discovery.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
The National University of SingaporeDefendantStatutory BoardWonWon
Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-MariePlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Siong ThyeJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chia Voon JietDrew & Napier LLC
Kelly LuaDrew & Napier LLC
Violet NettoL F Violet Netto
Colin PhanL F Violet Netto

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff was a Masters of Arts (Architecture) candidate at the National University of Singapore.
  2. The defendant refused to award the plaintiff the MA degree.
  3. The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract, misfeasance in public office, intimidation, and negligence.
  4. The plaintiff lodged a discovery application against the defendant, which was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar.
  5. The plaintiff appealed against the Assistant Registrar’s decision, but the appeal was dismissed.
  6. The plaintiff applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was also dismissed.
  7. The plaintiff applied for written grounds for the decisions, which was the subject of the present originating summons.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v The National University of Singapore, Originating Summons No 699 of 2014, [2014] SGHC 247

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff lodged a discovery application, Summons No 3299 of 2013.
The Assistant Registrar dismissed Summons No 3299 of 2013.
Plaintiff appealed against the Assistant Registrar’s decision, Registrar’s Appeal No 320 of 2013.
The court dismissed Registrar’s Appeal No 320 of 2013.
Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, Summons No 5875 of 2013.
Plaintiff wrote to the Supreme Court Registry to request written grounds of decision for RA 320 and SUM 5875.
Plaintiff sent an email to the Chief Justice.
The Registry replied that there was “no need for Grounds of Decision for this case”.
Plaintiff sent a letter to the Chief Justice, which enclosed a copy of the email cited above.
Plaintiff sent an email to V K Rajah JA.
The Supreme Court replied to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff applied for written grounds for RA 320 and SUM 5875 in Originating Summons No 699 of 2014.
Plaintiff’s counsel made a preliminary objection to the judge hearing the application and asked that the judge recuse himself from hearing the matter.
Parties appeared before the judge. The plaintiff’s counsel sought a further adjournment.
Parties appeared before the judge. The plaintiff’s counsel informed the judge that the plaintiff was not seeking leave to appeal against the judge’s decision not to recuse himself.
The court dismissed Originating Summons No 699 of 2014.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Duty to Provide Written Grounds of Decision
    • Outcome: The court held that there is no legal right to written grounds in every case and dismissed the application.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2012] 1 SLR 676
  2. Recusal of Judge
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for the judge to recuse himself.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 2 SLR 1108
      • [2007] 1 SLR(R) 85
  3. Violation of Article 12 of the Constitution
    • Outcome: The court disagreed with the plaintiff’s interpretation of Article 12 and dismissed the submission.
    • Category: Constitutional
    • Related Cases:
      • [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489
      • [2009] 2 SLR(R) 542

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Written Grounds of Decision

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Misfeasance in Public Office
  • Intimidation
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • General Litigation

11. Industries

  • Education

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and anotherUnknownYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 862SingaporeCited for the three criteria to grant leave to appeal.
Thong Ah Fat v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 SLR 676SingaporeCited to support the application for written grounds and the judicial duty to give reasons.
Elbow Holdings Pte Ltd v Marina Bay Sands Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 26SingaporeCited as an instance in which the High Court furnished written grounds with respect to appeals against decisions of Assistant Registrars in relation to discovery applications.
Koh Chong Chiah and others v Treasure Resort Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 51SingaporeCited as an instance in which the High Court furnished written grounds with respect to appeals against decisions of Assistant Registrars in relation to discovery applications.
Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-GeneralUnknownYes[2013] 2 SLR 1108SingaporeCited for principles on recusal based on apparent bias.
Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant KulkarniUnknownYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 85SingaporeCited for the test of apparent bias.
Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-GeneralUnknownYes[2011] 2 SLR 1189SingaporeCited for the principle that an application to a judge to recuse himself must be based on credible grounds.
Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan YewUnknownYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 576SingaporeCited for the principle that a claim that there is apparent bias on the part of a judge must be based on facts that are substantially true and accurate.
Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties LtdUnknownYes[2000] QB 451United KingdomCited for the principle that a judge must have regard to the quality of the allegation in determining an application for recusal.
Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng KongUnknownYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 489SingaporeCited for the objective of Article 12 of the Constitution.
Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1979–1980] SLR(R) 710SingaporeCited for the objective of Article 12 of the Constitution.
Eng Foong Ho and others v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 542SingaporeCited for the issue of whether a person is unequally treated under the law.
MacDonald v The QueenSupreme Court of CanadaYesMacDonald v The Queen (1976) 29 CCC (2d) 257CanadaCited regarding the impracticality of requiring reasons in every case due to the volume of criminal work.
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty LtdUnknownYesSoulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247AustraliaCited regarding the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
Waterson v BattenNew South Wales Court of AppealYesWaterson v Batten (13 May 1988) (New South Wales Court of Appeal)AustraliaCited regarding the need for a practical standard in drafting reasons due to the pressure of court lists.
In the Marriage Of: John Christopher Towns Appellant/Husband and Deborah Jane Towns Respondent/WifeFamily Court of AustraliaYesIn the Marriage Of: John Christopher Towns Appellant/Husband and Deborah Jane Towns Respondent/Wife [1990] FamCA 129AustraliaCited regarding the latitude towards judges at first instance who have to deliver judgments on an extemporary basis.
Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd v MassoudUnknownYesSun Alliance Insurance Ltd v Massoud [1989] VR 8AustraliaCited regarding the simplicity of the context of the case or the state of the evidence may be such that a mere statement of the judge's conclusion will sufficiently indicate the basis of a decision.
Brittingham v WilliamsUnknownYesBrittingham v Williams [1932] VLR 237AustraliaCited regarding the simplicity of the context of the case or the state of the evidence may be such that a mere statement of the judge's conclusion will sufficiently indicate the basis of a decision.
Public Service Board of New South Wales v OsmondUnknownYesPublic Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond (1986) 63 ALR 559AustraliaCited regarding the simplicity of the context of the case or the state of the evidence may be such that a mere statement of the judge's conclusion will sufficiently indicate the basis of a decision.
Capital and Suburban Properties Ltd v SwycherUnknownYesCapital and Suburban Properties Ltd v Swycher [1976] Ch 319United KingdomCited regarding exceptions to the duty to provide reasons for certain types of interlocutory applications.
Knight v CliftonUnknownYesKnight v Clifton [1971] Ch 700United KingdomCited regarding exceptions to the duty to provide reasons for certain types of interlocutory applications.
Eagil Trust Co Ltd v Pigott-BrownUnknownYesEagil Trust Co Ltd v Pigott-Brown [1985] 3 All ER 119United KingdomCited regarding exceptions to the duty to provide reasons when a judge exercises his discretion on costs.
Glen Rees T/as Glynmar Pastoral Co v WalkerNew South Wales Court of AppealYesGlen Rees T/as Glynmar Pastoral Co v Walker (13 December 1988) (New South Wales Court of Appeal)AustraliaCited regarding the need to give reasons even in matters of practice and procedure where the decision will effectively decide the rights of the parties finally.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Constitution of the Republic of SingaporeSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Discovery
  • Written Grounds
  • Recusal
  • Apparent Bias
  • Judicial Duty
  • Relevance
  • Necessity
  • Leave to Appeal
  • Interlocutory Application

15.2 Keywords

  • Discovery
  • Written Grounds
  • Recusal
  • NUS
  • Breach of Contract
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice70
Evidence60
Contracts50
Administrative Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Constitutional Law
  • Judicial Review