Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore: Negligence, Breach of Duty, Intimidation, Misfeasance in Public Office, Breach of Contract

In 2018, the High Court of Singapore heard the case of Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore, regarding the university's refusal to award Ten a Master of Arts (Architecture) degree. Ten alleged breach of contract, negligence, intimidation, and misfeasance in public office, claiming the university unfairly terminated her candidature in 2006. The court dismissed all claims, finding no evidence of malice or deliberate misconduct by the university, and that Ten failed to comply with reasonable administrative requirements for graduation.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie sues National University of Singapore for failure to award her a Master's degree, alleging negligence, intimidation, misfeasance, and breach of contract.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-MariePlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
National University of SingaporeDefendantStatutory BoardJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Christopher Anand DanielAdvocatus Law LLP
Ang Si YiAdvocatus Law LLP
Chia Voon JietDrew & Napier LLC
Koh Choon MinDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff was a candidate for a Master of Arts (Architecture) degree at NUS.
  2. Plaintiff's candidature was terminated on 4 September 2006 without obtaining the degree.
  3. Plaintiff alleged her supervisor, Dr. Wong, intended to use her thesis work without acknowledgement.
  4. Plaintiff complained about Dr. Wong's conduct and sought a change of supervisor.
  5. A Committee of Inquiry (COI) was formed to investigate the Plaintiff's concerns.
  6. The COI concluded there was insufficient evidence that Dr. Wong acted unethically.
  7. NUS required the Plaintiff to upload her thesis electronically and submit Form RO.85.
  8. Plaintiff refused to comply with the uploading requirement and submitting Form RO.85.
  9. VP Kong imposed the Acceptance requirement and the Cessation of Correspondence requirement.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore, Suit No 667 of 2012, [2018] SGHC 158

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff completed undergraduate studies at the University of East Anglia.
Plaintiff received offer of admission to Masters program from NUS.
Plaintiff accepted offer from NUS.
Plaintiff's candidature for the Degree commenced.
Plaintiff entered into Research Scholarship Agreement with NUS.
Dr. Wong emailed Plaintiff about research assistant position.
Dr. Wong emailed Plaintiff about research assistant position.
Dr. Wong, Dr. Wittkopf, and HOD Heng submitted grant application.
Plaintiff completed thesis and met with Dr. Wong.
Plaintiff submitted thesis.
Plaintiff wrote to HOD Heng to complain about Dr. Wong.
HOD Heng informed Plaintiff he saw no reason to remove Dr. Wong.
Plaintiff wrote to Dean Cheong.
Plaintiff met with Dean Cheong and Vice-Dean Chew.
Plaintiff sent email to Dean Cheong expressing concerns.
Plaintiff sent email to VP Kong seeking a meeting.
Plaintiff sent email to VP Kong detailing complaints.
VP Kong replied to Plaintiff summarizing key issues.
Plaintiff replied to VP Kong agreeing with issues and adding others.
VP Kong sent email to Plaintiff regarding supervision and examiners.
Plaintiff sent lengthy email to VP Kong stating responses.
VP Kong replied to Plaintiff stating NUS would convene an independent panel.
VP Kong and Registrar Ang met with Plaintiff.
Plaintiff informed VP Kong she would not accept either option.
Plaintiff emailed VP Kong clarifying her complaint.
Ms. Seah sent email from VP Kong to Plaintiff regarding complaints.
Plaintiff replied asking for clarification on contradictions.
Ms. Lau sent letter to Plaintiff informing her of COI setup.
Plaintiff sent email to Ms. Lau raising various questions.
Ms. Lau replied asking Plaintiff to raise questions with COI.
Plaintiff wrote to inform NUS she would not attend interview.
Prof. Pinsler sent email to Plaintiff urging her to attend interview.
Plaintiff did not attend interview.
NUS sent email to Plaintiff giving last opportunity to attend COI.
Plaintiff decided not to attend COI.
COI issued its report.
VP Kong wrote to Plaintiff informing her of COI resolutions.
Plaintiff replied to VP Kong alleging lack of transparency.
VP Kong replied to Plaintiff stating continuing correspondence was no longer productive.
Plaintiff sent email to VP Kong protesting VP Kong's Decision.
Plaintiff sent email to VP Kong protesting VP Kong's Decision.
Ms. Lau wrote to Plaintiff informing her of examiners' recommendations.
Plaintiff sent email to VP Kong.
Plaintiff re-sent email to VP Kong; VP Kong replied.
Ms. Lau sent email to Plaintiff stating Prof. Li was satisfied with thesis revision.
Ms. Lau sent email to Plaintiff asking about concerns regarding Form RO.85.
Plaintiff asked Ms. Lau if NUS would award degree without thesis on internet/intranet and signing Form RO.85.
VP Kong wrote to Plaintiff asking her to confirm acceptance of University's decisions.
Plaintiff emailed Ms. Lau stating VP Kong's letter did not answer her question.
Ms. Lau replied stating VP Kong's letter had answered Plaintiff's question.
Plaintiff sent email to Ms. Lau disagreeing that VP Kong had answered her question.
Ms. Lau responded referring to official circular and explaining requirements.
Plaintiff sent email to Ms. Lau forwarding soft copy of thesis.
Ms. Lau replied referring to Form RO.85 and reminding Plaintiff of requirements.
Plaintiff replied stating she still did not understand what to do after 'access level' was reached.
Ms. Lau sent letter stating NUS had not received written confirmation, Form RO.85, or uploaded thesis; candidature ceased.
Plaintiff sent email reminding Ms. Lau she had not responded to questions.
Plaintiff sent email to President Shih to complain.
Registrar Ang replied to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff responded by email.
Plaintiff sent email to President TCC to complain.
Registrar Ang responded to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff sought help from Member of Parliament to write to Ministry of Education.
Plaintiff wrote to the President of the Republic of Singapore to complain.
Present action was filed.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found no evidence of negligence on the part of the university.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Intimidation
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff did not meet the requirements for the tort of intimidation.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Misfeasance in Public Office
    • Outcome: The court found no evidence that the university acted deliberately or maliciously.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the university did not breach the contract, as the plaintiff failed to comply with reasonable administrative requirements.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Award of the Degree
  2. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

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

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Education Law

11. Industries

  • Education

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Morgan v Fry and othersCourt of AppealYes[1968] 3 WLR 506England and WalesCited for the essential ingredients of the tort of intimidation, including the requirement of a threat using unlawful means to compel obedience.
Lines International Holding (S) Pte Ltd v Singapore Tourist Promotion Board and anotherHigh CourtYes[1997] 1 SLR(R) 52SingaporeCited for the definition of the tort of misfeasance in public office, including the requirement of malice or knowledge that the act is ultra vires.
Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 3)House of LordsNo[2003] 2 AC 1England and WalesCited for the elements of the tort of misfeasance in public office, particularly the requirement of a deliberate act and abuse of power.
Clark v University of Lincolnshire and HumbersideCourt of AppealNo[2000] WLR 1988England and WalesCited for the proposition that a university is a public body, although the court notes this was not in issue in the appeal.
Tey Tsun Hang v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtNo[2014] 2 SLR 1189SingaporeCited to show that NUS is a public body for the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but clarifying that this does not mean NUS is a public body in all respects.
Gally v Columbia UniversityUnited States District Court, S.D. New YorkYes22 F.Supp.2nd 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)United StatesCited for the proposition that a student must fulfill the university's academic requirements and comply with its procedures to receive a degree.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 193SingaporeCited for the requirements of pleading facts of the factual matrix with specificity when relying on them for construction of a contract and for the three-step process to determine the existence of any alleged implied term.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Statutes of the National University of SingaporeSingapore
Statute 9(4) of the NUS StatutesSingapore
Statute 10(8) of the NUS StatutesSingapore
Statute 10(3) of the NUS StatutesSingapore
Statutes 10(1)Singapore
Statutes 10(4)Singapore
Statute 10(9)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Visualisation Project
  • Form RO.85
  • Committee of Inquiry
  • Acceptance requirement
  • Cessation of Correspondence requirement
  • Electronic thesis submission
  • Plagiarism
  • Unprofessionalism
  • COI report
  • Amendment requirement

15.2 Keywords

  • National University of Singapore
  • Masters Degree
  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence
  • Intimidation
  • Misfeasance
  • Thesis
  • Candidature
  • COI
  • Form RO.85

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Negligence80
Torts75
Breach of Contract70
Contract Law65
Misfeasance in public office60
Intimidation50
Obligation to award academic degree40

16. Subjects

  • Higher Education
  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law
  • Administrative Law