Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council: Disciplinary Proceedings & Costs
In Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Dr. Ang Pek San Lawrence against the decision of a Disciplinary Committee constituted by the Singapore Medical Council, which had convicted him of professional misconduct. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and all orders made by the Disciplinary Committee, including a costs order. This judgment addresses the issue of costs, specifically whether the Singapore Medical Council should bear the costs of the inquiry before the Disciplinary Committee and the costs of the appeal. The court ultimately ordered the Singapore Medical Council to bear the costs of both the inquiry and the appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against disciplinary conviction. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and addressing costs allocation, considering the Singapore Medical Council's regulatory role.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Medical Council | Respondent | Statutory Board | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ang Pek San Lawrence | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The appellant was the subject of a complaint filed by one of his patients.
- The Complaints Committee dismissed the complaint, finding no formal inquiry was required.
- The Minister for Health acceded to the complainant’s appeal, and a Disciplinary Committee was constituted.
- The Disciplinary Committee acquitted the appellant of all but the fourth charge.
- The Disciplinary Committee ordered that the appellant’s registration be suspended for three months.
- The High Court allowed the appeal, concluding that the Disciplinary Committee had made errors.
- The respondent failed to specify the type of professional misconduct alleged in the charges.
5. Formal Citations
- Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council, Originating Summons No 1219 of 2013, [2015] SGHC 58
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Complaints Committee dismissed the complaint | |
| Originating Summons No 1219 of 2013 filed | |
| Judgment given in favor of the appellant | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Professional Misconduct
- Outcome: The court found that the Disciplinary Committee had made errors in finding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to determine the requisite standard of conduct
- Taking into account facts that should not have been considered
- Costs Allocation in Regulatory Appeals
- Outcome: The court ordered the Singapore Medical Council to bear the costs of both the inquiry and the appeal, finding ample justification due to errors and the lack of a reasonable basis for the charges.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of Baxendale-Walker principle
- Balancing regulatory function with fairness to the appellant
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Reversal of suspension order
- Reversal of costs order
9. Cause of Actions
- Professional Misconduct
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Appeals
- Professional Negligence
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 436 | Singapore | Detailed the reasons for allowing the appeal, setting aside the appellant’s conviction. |
| Low Cze Hong v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 612 | Singapore | Cited for the types of professional misconduct. |
| Arun Kaliamurthy and others v Public Prosecutor and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1023 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale for limiting the power to make adverse cost orders in criminal proceedings. |
| The Attorney-General & Ephraim Hutchings (Relator) v The Directors of the Great Eastern Railway Company | House of Lords | Yes | (1880) 5 App Cas 473 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that ancillary powers should be implied when they may fairly be regarded as incidental to those things which the Legislature has authorized. |
| Gobinathan Devathasan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 926 | Singapore | Cited as a past decision of the High Court regarding appeals heard pursuant to s 46(7) of the MRA. |
| Low Chai Ling v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 83 | Singapore | Cited as a past decision of the High Court regarding appeals heard pursuant to s 46(7) of the MRA. |
| Baxendale-Walker v Law Society | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 WLR 426 | England and Wales | Applied in relation to disciplinary proceedings brought in the context of the legal profession. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1279 | Singapore | Applied the Baxendale-Walker principle in relation to disciplinary proceedings brought in the context of the legal profession. |
| City of Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council v Booth | Divisional Court | Yes | [2000] COD 338 | England and Wales | Considered that in matters concerning the exercise of a public regulatory function, costs decisions will involve a balancing of various factors. |
| Electric Light & Power Supply Corporation Ltd v Electricity Commission of New South Wales | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1956) 94 CLR 554 | Australia | Cited for the principle that if the legislature does not mean to take the court as it finds it with all its incidents including the liability to appeal, it will say so. |
| Regina (Perinpanathan) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 WLR 1508 | England and Wales | Considered the decisions in Baxendale-Walker and Booth’s case in a different context. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 59 r 3(2) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) s 45 | Singapore |
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) s 40 | Singapore |
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) s 41(7) | Singapore |
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) s 41(8)(b) | Singapore |
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) s 46(7) | Singapore |
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) s 46(16) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 20(c) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 38 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) ss 355(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) ss 356(1) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 35(8) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Professional misconduct
- Disciplinary Committee
- Complaints Committee
- Medical Registration Act
- Costs order
- Regulatory function
- Baxendale-Walker principle
- Public interest
- Ministerial appeal
- Standard of conduct
15.2 Keywords
- Medical Council
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Professional misconduct
- Costs
- Appeal
- Regulatory body
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Medical Disciplinary Proceedings
- Costs in Legal Proceedings
- Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions