Lee Pheng Lip Ian v Chen Fun Gee: Judicial Review of SMC Disciplinary Proceedings

In Lee Pheng Lip Ian v Chen Fun Gee, the plaintiff sought judicial review against the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) and its Complaints Committee (CC) regarding disciplinary proceedings. The plaintiff challenged the extensions of time granted to the CC and the order for a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) inquiry. The High Court of Singapore, on 4 March 2019, dismissed the originating summons, finding no substantial prejudice to the plaintiff and holding that the challenged actions were not invalid.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Originating Summons dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Judicial Review

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Judicial review sought against SMC's disciplinary proceedings. The court dismissed the application, finding no substantial prejudice to the plaintiff.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) filed a complaint against the plaintiff on 14 February 2014.
  2. The complaint was laid before a Complaints Committee (CC) for inquiry.
  3. The CC applied for and was granted 13 extensions of time (EOTs) to complete its inquiry.
  4. The CC ordered that an inquiry be held by a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) on 12 February 2018.
  5. The plaintiff filed Originating Summons No 514 of 2018 seeking judicial review of the CC's actions.
  6. The plaintiff's clinic license was not renewed by the Ministry of Health (MOH) for a period, but later renewed after an appeal.
  7. The plaintiff argued that the CC's delay caused him substantial prejudice, including loss of livelihood.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lee Pheng Lip Ian v Chen Fun Gee and others and other matters, Originating Summons No 514 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 51

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Singapore Medical Council made a complaint against the plaintiff.
SMC sent a further letter with additional information about the plaintiff.
Complaints Committee completed its inquiry and determined that a formal inquiry was necessary.
Plaintiff filed Originating Summons No 514 of 2018.
Hearing submissions from the plaintiff and the defendants.
Hearing submissions from the plaintiff and the defendants.
Hearing submissions from the plaintiff and the defendants.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Extensions of Time
    • Outcome: The court held that non-compliance with section 42(2) of the Medical Registration Act regarding extensions of time did not invalidate the Complaints Committee's actions.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Non-compliance with statutory requirements for granting extensions
      • Inadequate reasons for seeking extensions
  2. Substantial Prejudice
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had not suffered substantial prejudice as a result of any alleged non-compliance with statutory requirements.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Loss of livelihood
      • Inability to afford legal representation
      • Compromised ability to defend oneself
  3. Inordinate Delay
    • Outcome: The court did not have to address the argument of inordinate delay due to the finding that the plaintiff had not suffered substantial prejudice.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Abuse of process
      • Breach of natural justice

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Quashing Order
  2. Prohibiting Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Judicial Review

10. Practice Areas

  • Regulatory Law
  • Healthcare Law
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2012] 1 SLR 701SingaporeCited for the principle of determining whether a provision is directory or mandatory.
Chai Choon Yong v Central Provident Fund Board and othersHigh CourtYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 594SingaporeCited for the principle of determining whether a provision is directory or mandatory.
Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 115SingaporeDiscussed the interpretation of the predecessor provision of section 42(2) of the Medical Registration Act regarding extensions of time for Complaints Committees.
Regina v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police, Ex parte Calveley and OthersQueen's BenchYes[1986] 1 QB 424England and WalesCited for the principle that unnecessary delay in legal proceedings should not lead to judicial review absent mala fides or breach of natural justice.
Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical CouncilCourt of AppealYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 553SingaporeCited for the principle that unnecessary delay in legal proceedings should not lead to judicial review absent mala fides or breach of natural justice.
Jen Shek Wei v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2018] 3 SLR 943SingaporeCited regarding issues concerning alleged delay by the CC in completing its inquiry.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act (Cap 248, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Judicial Review
  • Singapore Medical Council
  • Complaints Committee
  • Disciplinary Tribunal
  • Extension of Time
  • Substantial Prejudice
  • Medical Registration Act
  • Inordinate Delay
  • Ultra Vires

15.2 Keywords

  • Judicial Review
  • Singapore Medical Council
  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • Medical Negligence
  • Administrative Law

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Administrative Law
  • Medical Law
  • Civil Procedure