Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore: Duty to Provide Reasons for Court Decisions
Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie appealed the High Court's decision regarding her application for written grounds of decision in interlocutory hearings against the National University of Singapore. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and Quentin Loh J, dismissed the appeal on 26 May 2015, holding that there is no duty on the court to issue written grounds of decision for every interlocutory hearing. The court ordered the Appellant to pay $6,000 in costs to the Respondent.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding the duty of the court to provide reasons for its decisions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no duty to issue written grounds for interlocutory hearings.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| National University of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
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 |
|---|---|
| Chia Voon Jiet | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Lua Jie Ying, Kelly | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellant applied for written grounds of decision for interlocutory hearings.
- Appellant was a Masters of Arts (Architecture) candidate at the National University of Singapore.
- Appellant alleged her supervisor planned to plagiarise her thesis.
- A Committee of Inquiry found no evidence to support the Appellant’s complaints.
- Appellant refused to satisfy administrative requirements for degree award.
- Respondent informed the Appellant that her candidature had ceased.
- Appellant sued the Respondent for breach of contract.
5. Formal Citations
- Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore, Civil Appeal No 177 of 2014, [2015] SGCA 41
- Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore, , [2015] 1 SLR 708
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant submitted her thesis to the Respondent for examination. | |
| Respondent convened a Committee of Inquiry to look into the Appellant’s complaints. | |
| The Committee of Inquiry issued its report. | |
| Respondent informed the Appellant of thesis examination completion and requirements for degree award. | |
| Deadline for Appellant to satisfy administrative requirements. | |
| Respondent requested written confirmation of acceptance of thesis examination decisions. | |
| Respondent reiterated the need for written confirmation via email. | |
| Respondent informed the Appellant that her candidature had ceased. | |
| Appellant filed a Writ of Summons in Suit No 667 of 2012. | |
| Statement of Claim was amended to include claims based on torts. | |
| Appellant filed Summons No 3299 of 2013, seeking discovery of documents. | |
| Parties appeared before the assistant registrar. | |
| The assistant registrar dismissed the Appellant’s application. | |
| Appellant filed a notice of appeal against the AR’s decision in Registrar’s Appeal No 320 of 2013. | |
| Parties appeared before the Judge, who dismissed the appeal. | |
| Appellant applied for leave to appeal against the Judge’s decision in RA 320/2013. | |
| Appellant requested a copy of the Grounds of Decision for RA 320/2013. | |
| Court replied indicating that the Appellant’s request was allowed. | |
| Parties appeared before the Judge, who dismissed the application for leave. | |
| Appellant’s solicitors requested for the Judge’s Grounds of Decision for RA 320/2013, as well as his Notes of Argument and Grounds of Decision for SUM 5875/2013. | |
| Appellant’s solicitors clarified that they had received the Notes of Arguments for both hearings but had yet to receive any Grounds of Decision. | |
| Registrar of the Supreme Court informed the Appellant that there is no need for Grounds of Decision for this case. | |
| Appellant wrote to the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, complaining that she did not receive any Grounds of Decision and requesting for a new hearing. | |
| Chief Executive of the Supreme Court replied to the Appellant, explaining why the Appellant’s application and appeal were dismissed. | |
| Appellant applied by way of OS 699/2014 for “[w]ritten Grounds of Decision” to be provided “in respect of interlocutory hearings before this Honourable Court”. | |
| Parties appeared before the Judge, where counsel for the Appellant applied for the Judge to recuse himself. The Judge disallowed the application. | |
| Parties appeared before the Judge. Counsel for the Appellant sought a further adjournment. | |
| Counsel for the Appellant indicated that his client was not seeking leave to appeal against the Judge’s dismissal of the recusal application. | |
| The Judge issued his detailed reasons in the GD. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Duty to Provide Reasons for Court Decisions
- Outcome: The court held that there is no absolute duty to provide written grounds of decision for every interlocutory hearing.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 1 SLR 676
8. Remedies Sought
- Written Grounds of Decision
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Appeals
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Education
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 708 | Singapore | The decision from which this appeal arose. |
| Thong Ah Fat v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 676 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties should know the reasons for the court’s decision and the duty to provide reasons for a decision. |
| Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd v Massoud | N/A | Yes | [1989] VR 8 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the simplicity of the context of the case may be such that a mere statement of the judge’s conclusion will sufficiently indicate the basis of a decision. |
| Brittingham v Williams | N/A | Yes | [1932] VLR 237 | N/A | Cited in Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd v Massoud for the principle that the simplicity of the context of the case may be such that a mere statement of the judge’s conclusion will sufficiently indicate the basis of a decision. |
| Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 357 | Singapore | Cited to support the statement that the Rules of Court regulate procedure and practice. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 38A of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Grounds of Decision
- Interlocutory Hearings
- Duty to Provide Reasons
- Committee of Inquiry
- Candidature
- Discovery Application
- Privilege
15.2 Keywords
- grounds of decision
- interlocutory
- court
- reasons
- singapore
- NUS
- National University of Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Duty to provide reasons | 60 |
| Judicial Review | 50 |
| Administrative Law | 40 |
| Constitutional Law | 30 |
| Corporate Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Legal Education