Pannir Selvam v Attorney-General: Application for Discovery of Documents in Judicial Review Proceedings
Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman applied to the High Court of Singapore for leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the Attorney-General, seeking discovery of documents and leave to serve interrogatories. The application arose from Originating Summons No 807 of 2019. See Kee Oon J dismissed the application for discovery and leave to appeal, finding that the Government was not yet a party to civil proceedings and that the requested documents were neither relevant nor necessary. The court also held that discovery applications should only be brought after leave is granted to commence judicial review.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application for discovery and leave to appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for leave to commence judicial review. The court dismissed the application for discovery of documents and leave to appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application Dismissed | Won | Sunil Nair of Attorney-General’s Chambers Adrian Loo Yu Hao of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ng Yong Kiat of Attorney-General’s Chambers Francis SC of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jarret Huang Jinghao of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Too Xing Ji | BMS Law LLC |
| Lee Ji En | BMS Law LLC |
| Sunil Nair | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Adrian Loo Yu Hao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ng Yong Kiat | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Francis SC | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jarret Huang Jinghao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The applicant was convicted on a capital charge of importing not less than 51.84g of diamorphine into Singapore.
- The President declined to exercise her power to grant clemency to the applicant.
- The applicant sought specific discovery of the 24 September 2018 report and Zamri’s phone number documents.
- The applicant applied for leave to appeal against the decision in SUM 3167/2019.
- The applicant was directed to file his intended application, as well as any supporting evidence by 6 June 2019.
5. Formal Citations
- Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 807 of 2019 (Summons Nos 3167 and 3764 of 2019), [2019] SGHC 217
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant convicted by the High Court on a capital charge. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. | |
| Applicant notified that the President declined to grant clemency. | |
| Applicant filed Criminal Motion No 6 of 2019 to the Court of Appeal. | |
| Court of Appeal granted the applicant a stay of execution. | |
| Applicant filed OS 807/2019. | |
| Applicant brought SUM 3167/2019 for specific discovery and leave to serve interrogatories. | |
| Counsel for the applicant inspected the Mandatory Death Penalty Notice at the Attorney-General's office. | |
| Reply affidavits filed on behalf of the Attorney-General. | |
| SUM 3167/2019 heard and dismissed. | |
| Summons for Leave to Appeal in SUM 3764/2019. | |
| SUM 3764/2019 heard and dismissed. | |
| Grounds of decision issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Discovery in Judicial Review Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that discovery applications should only be brought after leave is granted to commence judicial review.
- Category: Procedural
- Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that leave to appeal should not be granted as the applicant lacked a real interest in the outcome of the appeal.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Discovery of Documents
- Leave to Serve Interrogatories
- Quashing Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v Minister for Information and the Arts | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 627 | Singapore | Cited regarding the interpretation of ex parte applications and the role of the Attorney-General in judicial review proceedings. |
| George John v Goh Eng Wah Brothers Filem Sdn Bhd | Unknown | Yes | [1988] 1 MLJ 319 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the interpretation of ex parte applications and the role of the Attorney-General in judicial review proceedings. |
| Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 672 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of ex parte originating summons and the role of the Attorney General. |
| Axis Law Corp v Intellectual Property Office of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 554 | Singapore | Cited for the position that the mere service of cause papers on the Attorney-General does not suffice to render him a party to the proceedings. |
| UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 95 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's inherent jurisdiction to order the disclosure of documents where necessary to prevent injustice. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 258 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of inherent jurisdiction. |
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 117 | Singapore | Cited for guidance as to the ambit of the court’s inherent powers. |
| Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 147 | Singapore | Cited for the availability of the process of discovery under Order 24 of the Rules of Court in judicial review proceedings. |
| Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 1 AC 650 | Northern Ireland | Cited for the scope for discovery in judicial review proceedings. |
| Chu Woan-Chyi and others v Director of Immigration | Hong Kong Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 6 HKC 77 | Hong Kong | Cited for the scope for discovery in judicial review proceedings. |
| Rekapacific Bhd v Securities Commission and another and other appeals | Unknown | Yes | [2005] 2 MLJ 269 | Malaysia | Cited for the scope for discovery in judicial review proceedings. |
| Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1982] AC 617 | England | Cited for the principle that discovery should not be ordered unless the evidence reveals reasonable grounds for believing that there has been a breach of public duty. |
| AXY and others v Comptroller of Income Tax | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 616 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that the court was willing to entertain the idea of ordering discovery even at the leave stage. |
| Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale of having the leave stage in judicial review proceedings in place to filter out groundless and unmeritorious applications. |
| Muhamamd bin Abdullah v PP and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 427 | Singapore | Cited for the latest time at which an accused may provide information for the purposes of obtaining a certificate of substantive assistance. |
| Tan Chin Seng and others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 465 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where an allegation is not pleaded, seeking discovery of a document to back up such an allegation constitutes fishing. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2297 v Seasons Park Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 142 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in deciding on the relevance of a particular document, the court must arrive at an informed view as to whether the document in question may reasonably be expected to assist in proving or disproving a fact in issue. |
| Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and other applications | Unknown | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 39 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the wider the range of documents requested, the more difficult it is for the court to decide that the documents are necessary for disposing fairly of the matter or cause. |
| Wright Norman and another v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 452 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that interrogatories should not be used to “raid the cupboards” of opposing parties. |
| Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Wright Norman and others | Unknown | Yes | [1989] 1 SLR(R) 551 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that “fishing interrogatories” are not a proper use of the interrogatories procedure. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal. |
| Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority and another application | Unknown | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 558 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal. |
| Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v PP and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 173 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal may decline to hear arguments on the basis that they do not relate to a live issue before the court. |
| AG v Joo Yee Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 165 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale for the need for a live issue before the court. |
| Ainsbury v Millington | Unknown | Yes | [1987] 1 All ER 929 | England | Cited for the principle that the courts decide disputes between the parties before them; they do not pronounce on abstract questions of law when there is no dispute to be resolved. |
| Foo Jong Peng and others v Phua Kiah Mai and another | Unknown | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 1267 | Singapore | Cited for the need for an appellant to possess “a real interest in the outcome” before a court would hear a matter. |
| King Royal Ltd v Lam Kwan Yuk | Hong Kong Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 HKLRD 488 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that the court would not allow the appellant to argue a point because he had obtained leave to appeal from the Divisional Court on one point only and that point formed the only point in the Divisional Court’s decision. |
| Jones v Biernstein | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1900] 1 QB 100 | England | Cited for the principle that it would not be permissible for questions of fact to be raised on appeal when leave to appeal on that specific ground had not been granted. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court O 24 r 1 |
| Rules of Court O 24 r 5 |
| Rules of Court O 24 r 7 |
| Rules of Court O 26 r 1 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 7 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Reprint) Art 22P(1) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 53 r 1(2) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 53 r 1(3) | Singapore |
| Government Proceedings Act (Cap 121, 1985 Rev Ed) s 34(1) | Singapore |
| Government Proceedings Act (Cap 121, 1985 Rev Ed) s 2(2) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 54 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 34(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial Review
- Discovery
- Interrogatories
- Leave to Appeal
- Mandatory Death Penalty
- Clemency
- Substantive Assistance
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Discovery
- Singapore
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Judicial Review | 90 |
| Discovery of documents | 85 |
| Civil Procedure | 80 |
| Administrative Law | 75 |
| Appeal | 70 |
| Leave | 65 |
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Judicial Review
- Discovery