Lee Pheng Lip Ian v Chen Fun Gee: Judicial Review of SMC Disciplinary Proceedings
Dr. Lee Pheng Lip Ian appealed against the High Court's decision to dismiss his application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings against Chen Fun Gee, Venkataraman Anatharaman, Yeow Kok Leng Vincent, Tan Jin Hwee, and the Singapore Medical Council (SMC). The application arose from extensions of time granted during a preliminary inquiry into complaints against Dr. Lee's clinic. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Dr. Lee failed to meet the threshold for judicial review and that the extensions of time did not invalidate the disciplinary proceedings.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision to deny leave for judicial review of disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Lee Pheng Lip Ian.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Pheng Lip Ian | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Liew Wey-Ren Colin |
| Chen Fun Gee | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Successful defense of appeal | Won | Thio Shen Yi, Niklas Wong See Keat, Thara Rubini Gopalan |
| Venkataraman Anatharaman | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Successful defense of appeal | Won | Thio Shen Yi, Niklas Wong See Keat, Thara Rubini Gopalan |
| Yeow Kok Leng Vincent | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Successful defense of appeal | Won | Thio Shen Yi, Niklas Wong See Keat, Thara Rubini Gopalan |
| Tan Jin Hwee | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Successful defense of appeal | Won | Thio Shen Yi, Niklas Wong See Keat, Thara Rubini Gopalan |
| Singapore Medical Council | Respondent, Defendant | Statutory Board | Successful defense of appeal | Won | Thio Shen Yi, Niklas Wong See Keat, Thara Rubini Gopalan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Liew Wey-Ren Colin | Colin Liew LLC |
| Thio Shen Yi | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Niklas Wong See Keat | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Thara Rubini Gopalan | TSMP Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The Appellant operated a private clinic licensed under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act.
- The Ministry of Health (MOH) refused to renew the Clinic’s license due to non-compliance with regulations.
- The MOH referred the matter to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC).
- A Complaints Committee (CC) was appointed to carry out a preliminary inquiry.
- The CC sought 13 extensions of time (EOTs) during the inquiry, all of which were granted.
- Eight EOTs were applied for after the expiry of the extended deadlines.
- The CC concluded that a formal inquiry before a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) should be held.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Pheng Lip Ian v Chen Fun Gee and others, Civil Appeal No 52 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 06
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant applied to renew the Clinic’s licence | |
| Clinic’s licence was due to expire | |
| MOH sent a letter to the Clinic noting that it offered some non-mainstream services | |
| MOH notified the SMC that the Appellant was offering some non-mainstream services | |
| Appellant wrote to the Minister for Health to dispute the MOH’s position | |
| SMC lodged a complaint against the Appellant | |
| CC was appointed | |
| SMC sent the notice of complaint to the Appellant | |
| Appellant sent a letter to the SMC Investigation Unit to offer an explanation | |
| MOH informed the Appellant that it would not be renewing the Clinic’s licence | |
| Clinic’s licence expired | |
| Appellant appealed against the MOH’s decision not to renew the licence | |
| MOH provided the SMC with additional information | |
| Additional information was placed before the CC | |
| Appellant wrote a letter to the Minister requesting a reply to his earlier letter | |
| MOH informed the Appellant that it had requested the SMC to form an advisory committee | |
| MOH wrote to the Appellant informing him that the Minister had decided to allow the Appellant’s appeal | |
| CC informed the Appellant that it had completed the inquiry and had ordered a formal inquiry | |
| CC took close to four years since its appointment on 8 May 2014 to complete its inquiry on 12 February 2018 | |
| During this period, the CC applied in writing to the Chairman of CP for 13 EOTs. All 13 EOTs were granted. | |
| Eight out of the 13 EOTs were made after the expiry of the extended deadlines to complete the inquiry. | |
| The Appellant commenced these judicial review proceedings in the High Court by way of Originating Summons 514 of 2018 | |
| The Judge ordered that disciplinary tribunal proceedings against the Appellant be stayed pending the determination of this appeal | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment |
7. Legal Issues
- Judicial Review
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the Appellant failed to satisfy the threshold for judicial review.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Threshold for leave to commence judicial review
- Grounds for judicial review
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 1 SLR 1223
- [2018] 1 SLR 1069
- Statutory Interpretation
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that section 42(2) of the Medical Registration Act is a directory provision, and non-compliance does not invalidate the proceedings.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Mandatory vs. directory provisions
- Consequences of non-compliance
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 597
- [2005] 2 SLR(R) 594
- Extension of Time
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that there is no prohibition against applying for or granting extensions of time after the expiry of the original stipulated period.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Validity of extensions applied for after expiry of deadline
- Sufficiency of reasons for granting extensions
- Bad Faith
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that bad faith was not proved on the facts of this case.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing order to quash all applications by the CC to the Chairman of CP for EOT
- Quashing order to quash all decisions of the Chairman of CP granting EOT to the CC
- Quashing order to quash the CC’s decision that an inquiry into the Complaint be held by a DT
- Prohibiting order to prohibit the SMC from referring the Complaint to the Chairman of CP
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Litigation
- Healthcare Law
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wong Souk Yee v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1223 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements that must be satisfied before an applicant may be granted leave to commence judicial review proceedings. |
| AXY and others v Comptroller of Income Tax | High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 1069 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements that must be satisfied before an applicant may be granted leave to commence judicial review proceedings. |
| Ng Swee Lang and another v Sassoon Samuel Bernard and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 597 | Singapore | Cited regarding the modern approach is to consider whether it is the intention of Parliament to invalidate an act done in breach of a statutory provision. |
| Chai Choon Yong v Central Provident Fund Board and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 594 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court engaging in an exercise of statutory interpretation of the relevant statutory provision in its attempt to decipher what Parliament’s intention was in respect of the consequences of non-compliance. |
| Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | No | [2016] 4 SLR 192 | Singapore | Cited regarding a review committee’s findings and decisions were susceptible to judicial review notwithstanding s 106 of the LPA which is materially similar to s 68 of the MRA. |
| Regina v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police, Ex parte Calveley and Others | English Court of Appeal | No | [1986] 1 QB 424 | England and Wales | Cited regarding disciplinary proceedings were brought against five police officers who were not given formal notice of the complaints under the relevant regulation. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act (Cap 248, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Regulations (Cap 248, Rg 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, Rev Ed 1999) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial Review
- Extension of Time
- Complaints Committee
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Medical Registration Act
- Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act
- Singapore Medical Council
- Preliminary Inquiry
- Directory Provision
- Mandatory Provision
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Medical Disciplinary Proceedings
- Singapore Medical Council
- Extension of Time
- Regulatory Law
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Healthcare Regulation
- Professional Discipline
17. Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Judicial Review
- Medical Law
- Regulatory Law