The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v IMDA: Judicial Review of Broadcasting License Suspension

The Online Citizen Pte Ltd (TOCPL) applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) regarding the suspension of TOCPL's class license. TOCPL sought quashing orders and declarations related to the IMDA's orders against its Chinese website and social media platforms. The court, presided over by Valerie Thean J, dismissed TOCPL's application, holding that TOCPL failed to exhaust its statutory remedies by appealing to the Minister and that there was no prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in favor of granting the orders sought.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Judicial Review

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

TOCPL seeks judicial review of IMDA's suspension of its broadcasting license. The court dismisses the application, citing failure to exhaust alternative remedies.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
The Online Citizen Pte LtdApplicantCorporationApplication dismissedLost
Info-communications Media Development AuthorityRespondentStatutory BoardWonWon
Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lim Toh Han of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Du Xuan of Attorney-General’s Chambers

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lim TeanCarson Law Chambers
Khoo Boo JinAttorney-General’s Chambers
Lim Toh HanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Du XuanAttorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

  1. TOCPL is a local media outlet providing services on various platforms.
  2. In 2020, TOCPL failed to comply with the requirement to declare its funding sources.
  3. On 14 September 2021, IMDA suspended TOCPL’s class licence.
  4. TOCPL was required to stop posting articles and disable access to its broadcasting services.
  5. TOCPL sought leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the IMDA.
  6. TOCPL does not challenge the IMDA’s suspension and cancellation of its class licence.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re The Online Citizen Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 947 of 2021, [2021] SGHC 285

6. Timeline

DateEvent
IMDA issued a notice to TOCPL regarding failure to declare funding sources.
IMDA informed TOCPL of the suspension of its class licence.
TOCPL was required to disable access to its licensable broadcasting services.
TOCPL filed a statement pursuant to Order 53 rule 1(2) of the Rules of Court.
Xu Yuan Chen @ Terry Xu affirmed an affidavit.
Notes of Argument were presented.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies
    • Outcome: The court held that TOCPL ought to have exhausted its statutory remedies by appealing to the Minister before invoking the court’s judicial review jurisdiction.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Scope of Class Licence
    • Outcome: The court held that the services provided on TOCPL’s Chinese website and social media platforms fall within the meaning of 'computer on-line services' and are subject to the class licence.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Substantive Legitimate Expectations
    • Outcome: The court held that TOCPL has not provided evidence of any unequivocal and unqualified representation by the IMDA that only the services provided on its two main websites were 'computer on-line services' subject to the class licence.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Territorial Scope of Licence Suspension
    • Outcome: The court held that the IMDA's letter did not purport to prohibit the provision of services from other countries.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Quashing Orders
  2. Declarations

9. Cause of Actions

  • Judicial Review

10. Practice Areas

  • Regulatory Law
  • Media Law
  • Administrative Law
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Media
  • Telecommunications

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 1222SingaporeCited for the requirements for leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2021] 1 SLR 809SingaporeCited for the requirements for leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
Borissik Svetlana v Urban Redevelopment AuthorityHigh CourtYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 92SingaporeCited for the principle that alternative remedies should be exhausted before invoking judicial review.
Comptroller of Income Tax v ACCCourt of AppealYes[2010] 2 SLR 1189SingaporeCited for affirming the principle that alternative remedies should be exhausted before invoking judicial review.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte SwatiEngland and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division)Yes[1986] 1 WLR 477England and WalesCited for the principle that judicial review will not be exercised where other remedies were available and have not been used.
AXY v Comptroller of Income TaxHigh CourtYes[2018] 1 SLR 1069SingaporeCited for the burden of proof on the applicant to satisfy the court that the requirement of a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion is met.
Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 883SingaporeCited for the principle that the evidence and arguments placed before the court cannot be either skimpy or vague, and bare assertions will not suffice.
Chiu Teng @ Kallang Pte Ltd v Singapore Land AuthorityHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 1047SingaporeCited for the acceptance of the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations as a stand-alone head of judicial review.
SGB Starkstrom Pte Ltd v Commissioner for LabourCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 598SingaporeCited for the open question of the legal status of the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations in Singapore.
Kardachi, Jason Aleksander v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 1190SingaporeCited for the open question of the legal status of the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations in Singapore.
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 216SingaporeCited regarding the scope of the court’s power on judicial review.
Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing and Development Board and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2016] 1 SLR 1020SingaporeCited regarding the scope of the court’s power on judicial review.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 53, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court (2014 Revised Edition)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Broadcasting Act (Cap 28, 2012 Revised Edition)Singapore
Broadcasting Act s 12(1)(a)Singapore
Broadcasting Act s 12(1)(i)Singapore
Broadcasting Act s 9Singapore
Broadcasting Act s 8(1)Singapore
Broadcasting Act s 46Singapore
Broadcasting Act s 12(2)Singapore
Broadcasting Act s 59(1)(b)Singapore
Broadcasting Act s 59Singapore
Broadcasting Act s 59(1)(a)Singapore
Broadcasting Act s 2(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Class Licence
  • Judicial Review
  • Broadcasting Act
  • IMDA
  • Computer On-line Services
  • Internet Content Provider
  • Exhaustion of Remedies
  • Substantive Legitimate Expectations

15.2 Keywords

  • Broadcasting Licence
  • Judicial Review
  • IMDA
  • The Online Citizen
  • Class Licence
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Communications and Media80
Administrative Law75
Statutory Interpretation60
Internet Law60
Regulatory Law50
Constitutional Law25
Corporate Law10
Civil Procedure10
Consumer Law10

16. Subjects

  • Broadcasting Law
  • Administrative Law
  • Judicial Review