Sim Yong Teng v Singapore Swimming Club: Disciplinary Tribunals & Natural Justice

Sim Yong Teng and Goh Eng Eng appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore against the High Court's decision to dismiss their application to set aside the Singapore Swimming Club's decision to suspend their membership. The suspension was based on Sim's conviction for insider trading under the Securities and Futures Act. The Court of Appeal, delivered by Chan Sek Keong SJ, allowed the appeal, holding that the management committee had prejudged the case, violating the rules of natural justice. The court also found that the principle of necessity did not apply in this case.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding Singapore Swimming Club's suspension of Sim Yong Teng's membership due to insider trading conviction. The court allowed the appeal, citing a breach of natural justice.

1.7 Decision Date

16 February 2016

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Singapore Swimming Club	Respondent	Association	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Chang Man Phing of WongPartnership LLP Lim Wan Yu Cheronne of WongPartnership LLP Ng Shu Ping of WongPartnership LLP
Sim Yong Teng	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Ragbir Singh s/o Ram Singh Bajwa of Bajwa & Co
Goh Eng Eng	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Ragbir Singh s/o Ram Singh Bajwa of Bajwa & Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Judge of Appeal	No
Chan Sek Keong	Senior Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chang Man Phing	WongPartnership LLP
Lim Wan Yu Cheronne	WongPartnership LLP
Ng Shu Ping	WongPartnership LLP
Ragbir Singh s/o Ram Singh Bajwa	Bajwa & Co

4. Facts

Sim was convicted of insider trading under the Securities and Futures Act.
The Singapore Swimming Club suspended Sim's membership based on his conviction.
The management committee relied on a legal opinion stating that insider trading involved moral turpitude.
Some members of the management committee expressed their agreement with the decision to suspend Sim's membership before the hearing.
The management committee excluded members who were part of the initial decision to suspend Sim.
Sim argued that the management committee had prejudged his case.
The High Court initially dismissed Sim's application to set aside the suspension.

5. Formal Citations

Sim Yong Teng and another v Singapore Swimming Club, Civil Appeal No 88 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 10

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1974-01-01	Sim Yong Teng and Goh Eng Eng became members of the Singapore Swimming Club
2012-10-12	Sim Yong Teng was convicted of insider trading under the Securities and Futures Act
2012-10-19	Gary Oon notified the Singapore Swimming Club of Sim’s conviction
2012-12-26	Management committee meeting to consider the complaint against Sim
2013-03-27	Management committee obtained legal opinion stating that insider trading involved moral turpitude
2013-04-03	Management committee decided that Sim’s conviction involved moral turpitude and suspended his membership
2013-06-28	Sim and his wife commenced court proceedings in Originating Summons No 572 of 2013 to set aside the decision of 3 April 2013
2013-07-25	Eight members of the management committee gave their views in letters
2013-07-26	Chua filed an affidavit in OS 572/2013 annexing the 25/7/2013 Letters as exhibits
2013-09-12	Management committee decided to rehear the complaint against Sim
2013-09-17	Sim was informed of the decision to rehear the complaint against him
2013-09-30	Hearing postponed due to Sim’s unavailability
2013-10-08	Rehearing of the complaint against Sim; management committee decided to suspend Sim’s membership
2014-02-20	Sim and his wife commenced court proceedings in OS 144/2014
2015-11-02	Appeal heard and allowed
2016-02-17	Grounds of decision delivered

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that the management committee had prejudged the complaint, violating the rules of natural justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Predetermination
  - Apparent Bias
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 2 SLR(R) 802
  - [2014] 3 SLR 241
  - [1993] 3 SLR(R) 774
  - [2007] 1 SLR(R) 85
  - [2005] 4 SLR(R) 604
  - [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576
  - [2011] 4 SLR 156
  - [1992] 3 SLR(R) 552
  - [2004] EWCA Civ 311
  - [2000] 1 AC 119
  - [2006] 1 WLR 781
  - [2000] QB 451
Applicability of the Principle of Necessity
- Outcome: The court held that the principle of necessity did not apply in this case.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1993] 3 SLR(R) 774
  - [2014] 3 SLR 241
  - [1990] 170 CLR 70
Moral Turpitude in Insider Trading
- Outcome: The court did not make a determination on whether insider trading involved moral turpitude, as the appeal was allowed on other grounds.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the decision to suspend membership was null and void
Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Breach of Natural Justice

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Recreation

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Kay Swee Pin v Singapore Island Country Club	High Court	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 802	Singapore	Cited for principles of natural justice applicable to social clubs.
Khong Kin Hoong Lawrence v Singapore Polo Club	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 241	Singapore	Cited for principles of natural justice applicable to social clubs and the principle of necessity.
Chiam See Tong v Singapore Democratic Party	High Court	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR(R) 774	Singapore	Cited for the application of the principle of necessity to a political party's disciplinary proceedings.
Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 85	Singapore	Cited for the test for apparent bias.
Tang Kin Hwa v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board	High Court	Yes	[2005] 4 SLR(R) 604	Singapore	Cited for the test for apparent bias.
Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew	High Court	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 576	Singapore	Cited for the test for apparent bias.
Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council	High Court	Yes	[2011] 4 SLR 156	Singapore	Cited for the test for apparent bias.
De Souza Lionel Jerome v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[1992] 3 SLR(R) 552	Singapore	Cited for the test for apparent bias.
Regina (on the application of PD) v West Midlands and North West Mental Health Review Tribunal	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)	Yes	[2004] EWCA Civ 311	England and Wales	Cited for the test for apparent bias.
Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2)	House of Lords	Yes	[2000] 1 AC 119	United Kingdom	Cited for the test for apparent bias.
Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)	Yes	[2006] 1 WLR 781	England and Wales	Cited for the test for apparent bias.
Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties and another	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)	Yes	[2000] QB 451	England and Wales	Cited for the test for apparent bias and the difficulty of proving actual bias.
Porter v Magill	House of Lords	Yes	[2002] 2 AC 357	United Kingdom	Cited for the test for apparent bias.
Lanes Group Plc v Galliford Try Infrastructure Limited T/A Galliford Try Rail	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)	Yes	[2012] Bus LR 1184	England and Wales	Cited for the rule against prejudgment.
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Kirkstall Valley Campaign Ltd	High Court of Justice	Yes	[1996] 3 All ER 304	England and Wales	Cited for the rule against prejudgment.
Regina (Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)	Yes	[2009] 1 WLR 83	England and Wales	Cited for the rule against prejudgment.
National Assembly for Wales v Condron and another	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)	Yes	[2006] EWCA Civ 1573	England and Wales	Cited for the distinction between prejudgment and predisposition.
Webb and Hay v The Queen	High Court of Australia	Yes	[1994] 181 CLR 41	Australia	Cited for the categories of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias.
Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board v John William Churchill	Supreme Court of Victoria	Yes	[1998] VSC 51	Australia	Cited for the purpose of the principle of necessity.
Anwar Siraj v Tang I Fang	High Court	Yes	[1981-1982] SLR(R) 391	Singapore	Cited for the principle of necessity and its limitations.
Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal	High Court of Australia	Yes	[1990] 170 CLR 70	Australia	Cited for the principle of necessity and its application to statutory tribunals.
Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island	Supreme Court of Canada	Yes	[1998] 1 SCR 3	Canada	Cited for the principle of necessity and its source in the rule of law.
Dimes v The Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal and others	House of Lords	Yes	(1852) 3 HLC 758	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle of necessity and conflict of interest.
Fadzil bin Mohamed Noor v Universiti Teknologi Malaysia	Federal Court	Yes	[1981] 2 MLJ 196	Malaysia	Cited for the principle of necessity in disciplinary matters.
Datuk T P Murugasu v Wong Hung Nung	Supreme Court	Yes	[1988] 1 MLJ 291	Malaysia	Cited for the principle of necessity in disciplinary matters.
Amar Nath Chowdhury v Braithwaite and Company Ltd and others	Supreme Court	Yes	AIR 2002 SC 678	India	Cited for the application of the principle of necessity to a private company.
Clenae Pty Ltd and others v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd	Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] VSCA 35	Australia	Cited for the question of 'Necessary for what purpose?' in relation to the principle of necessity.
Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy	High Court of Australia	Yes	(2000) 205 CLR 337	Australia	Cited for the purpose of the principle of necessity.
Jeff and others v New Zealand Dairy Production and Marketing Board and others	Privy Council	Yes	[1967] 1 AC 551	New Zealand	Cited for the principle of necessity where it is legally impossible to have anyone other than the appointed authority as the adjudicator.
The Judges v Attorney-General for Saskatchewan	Judicial Committee of the Privy Council	Yes	[1937] 53 TLR 464	Canada	Cited for institutional bias.
Beauregard v Canada	Supreme Court of Canada	Yes	[1986] 2 SCR	Canada	Cited for institutional bias.
Kay Swee Pin v Singapore Island Country Club	High Court	Yes	[2008] SGHC 143	Singapore	Cited for the principles of damages for wrongful suspension of club membership.
Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 1189	Singapore	Cited for the definition of bias.
Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2012] 1 SLR 506	Singapore	Cited for the court's reluctance to disturb the findings of a disciplinary tribunal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of the Singapore Swimming Club rule 15(d)
Rules of the Singapore Swimming Club rule 21(c)
Rules of the Singapore Swimming Club rule 4
Rules of the Singapore Swimming Club rule 5(f)(i)
Rules of the Singapore Swimming Club rule 7(f)
Rules of the Singapore Swimming Club rule 21(d)(ix)(2)
Rules of the Singapore Swimming Club rule 21(a)(iv)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev Ed) s 218(2)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Insider Trading
Moral Turpitude
Natural Justice
Predetermination
Apparent Bias
Principle of Necessity
Club Membership
Disciplinary Proceedings
Management Committee

15.2 Keywords

Singapore Swimming Club
Insider Trading
Membership Suspension
Natural Justice
Administrative Law
Disciplinary Tribunal
Bias
Predetermination

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Administrative Law	90
Natural justice	90
Disciplinary Tribunals	80
Rules of natural justice	70
Insider Trading	70
Actual and apparent bias	60
Prejudgment	60
Principle of necessity	50
Moral turpitude	50
Contracts	40
Civil Litigation	40
Breach of Contract	30
Litigation	30
Contract Law	30
Fiduciary Duty	20
Corporate Law	20
Torts	10
Negligence	10
Arbitration	10

16. Subjects

Administrative Law
Club Governance
Disciplinary Proceedings
Natural Justice