Tey Tsun Hang v National University of Singapore: Judicial Review of Dismissal
Tey Tsun Hang, a former associate professor at the National University of Singapore (NUS), applied for judicial review against NUS's decisions to suspend and subsequently dismiss him. The High Court, presided over by Justice Quentin Loh, dismissed the application, holding that NUS's actions were based on the employment agreement between the parties and not susceptible to judicial review. The court also noted Tey's failure to exhaust alternative remedies and his delay in filing the application.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Judicial review application by Tey Tsun Hang against NUS's suspension and dismissal decisions. The court dismissed the application, finding the decisions stemmed from a private employment agreement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tey Tsun Hang | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Ravi s/o Madasamy |
| National University of Singapore | Respondent | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Won | Cavinder Bull, Gerui Lim, Priscilla Lua |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | L F Violet Netto |
| Cavinder Bull | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Gerui Lim | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Priscilla Lua | Drew & Napier LLC |
| David Chong | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Sivakumar Ramasamy | Attorney-General's Chambers |
4. Facts
- Tey was an associate professor at NUS.
- NUS suspended Tey after he was charged with corruption.
- NUS terminated Tey's employment after he was convicted of the charges.
- Tey appealed against the District Court's decision, and the High Court allowed the appeal.
- Tey filed an application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings against NUS's decisions to suspend and terminate him.
- Tey admitted to receiving gifts from a student and having an intimate relationship with her.
- Tey breached NUS's Code of Conduct and policies.
5. Formal Citations
- Tey Tsun Hang v National University of Singapore, Originating Summons No 511 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 7
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Employment Agreement between Tey and NUS was signed. | |
| Tey was charged in court with corruption and suspended from duty by NUS. | |
| District Court found Tey guilty and NUS terminated his employment. | |
| High Court allowed Tey’s appeal against the District Court’s decision. | |
| Tey filed application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings against NUS. | |
| Hearing of the judicial review application. | |
| High Court dismissed Tey's application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings. |
7. Legal Issues
- Susceptibility to Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court held that the decisions made by NUS were not susceptible to judicial review as the power to suspend or dismiss Tey stemmed from the employment agreement.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies
- Outcome: The court found that Tey had not exhausted all available remedies before seeking recourse from the court.
- Category: Procedural
- Delay in Filing Application
- Outcome: The court noted Tey's delay in filing the application for judicial review.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Order in relation to the decision of 27 July 2012 by NUS suspending Tey from duty
- Quashing Order in relation to the decision of 28 May 2013 by NUS summarily dismissing Tey from his post
- Mandatory Order against NUS to reinstate Tey to his position as of 26 July 2012
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Employment Litigation
11. Industries
- Education
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements to be met for leave to be granted for judicial review. |
| Comptroller of Income Tax v ACC | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a person seeking judicial review should normally exhaust all alternative remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of the court. |
| Borissik Svetlana v Urban Redevelopment Authority | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 92 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a person seeking judicial review should normally exhaust all alternative remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of the court. |
| UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 94 | Singapore | Cited for the two questions that have to be considered to determine if a decision is susceptible to judicial review. |
| Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the relationship between NUS and Tey was purely contractual and not susceptible to judicial review. |
| Regina v East Berkshire Health Authority, ex parte Walsh | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1985] QB 152 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that an employee’s seniority should not matter when determining the nature or the source of the power that the employer chooses to exercise. |
| Yeap Wai Kong v Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Ltd | High Court | No | [2012] 3 SLR 565 | Singapore | Distinguished from the present case as SGX-ST’s power to reprimand was contained in Rule 720 of SGX-ST’s Listing Manual, which had been enacted and approved by the Monetary Authority of Singapore, whereas NUS’ power simply came from the Employment Agreement. |
| Thong Ah Fat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 676 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is not always the case that written judgments are necessary and that what is important is that the judge must give reasons for his decision. |
| Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v The National University of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 247 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a judge’s decision not to issue a written judgment could constitute grounds for recusal where he or she provided no reasons at all and there was proof that his or her reticence was indicative of apparent bias. |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 1108 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a judge’s decision not to issue a written judgment could constitute grounds for recusal where he or she provided no reasons at all and there was proof that his or her reticence was indicative of apparent bias. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tey Tsun Hang | District Court | Yes | [2013] SGDC 165 | Singapore | Cited to show that Tey admitted that he had received gifts of significant value from one of his students at NUS, been in an intimate relationship with the Student, and breached NUS’ Code of Conduct, the Conflict of Interest Policy for NUS Staff, and the NUS Policy on Acceptance of Gifts by Staff. |
| Tey Tsun Hang v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited to show that the High Court affirmed the District Court’s finding that Tey had breached the policies of NUS and that he had abused his position as a lecturer when he exploited the Student. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rule 720 of SGX-ST’s Listing Manual |
| O 53 r 1(6) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| National University of Singapore (Corporatisation) Act (Cap 204A, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) | Singapore |
| Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial Review
- Suspension
- Dismissal
- Employment Agreement
- Natural Justice
- Public Law Function
- Exhaustion of Remedies
- Delay
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- National University of Singapore
- Employment Law
- Dismissal
- Suspension
16. Subjects
- Employment Dispute
- Judicial Review
- Administrative Law
17. Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Employment Law
- Contract Law
- Judicial Review