Han Hui Hui v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of COVID-19 Policies & Vaccination

Han Hui Hui and others applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 18 April 2022 for judicial review of two government COVID-19 policies: the Unvaccinated Medical Bills Policy and the October Advisory. The applicants sought quashing orders and declarations that the policies were unlawful, irrational, and breached their legitimate expectations. Dedar Singh Gill J dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of reasonable suspicion to grant the orders sought.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Judicial Review

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Judicial review of COVID-19 policies on unvaccinated medical bills and workplace measures. Court dismisses application for quashing orders.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Han Hui HuiApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Sng Su HuiApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Yeo Sheau YuenApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Lim Beng KwangApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Lawrence Simon AnthonyApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Muhammad Faizal bin MustafaApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Attorney-General’s ChambersRespondentGovernment AgencyApplication dismissedWon
Ho Jiayun of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lim Toh Han of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jean Goh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Kristy Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Dedar Singh GillJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lim TeanCarson Law Chambers
Ho JiayunAttorney-General’s Chambers
Lim Toh HanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Jean GohAttorney-General’s Chambers
Kristy TanAttorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

  1. The Government announced it would fully cover COVID-19 medical bills of all patients in public hospitals.
  2. The Multi-Ministry Taskforce was established on 22 January 2020 to direct the government's response to COVID-19.
  3. The Unvaccinated Medical Bills Policy was announced on 8 November 2021, charging unvaccinated patients for COVID-19 medical bills.
  4. The October Advisory was issued to employers by the Tripartite Partners regarding unvaccinated employees.
  5. The Applicants sought leave to apply for remedies against the Government's responses.
  6. The Applicants contended that the Unvaccinated Medical Bills Policy finds grounding in incorrect factual bases.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Han Hui Hui and others v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 1313 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 141

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Multi-Ministry Taskforce established
Government announced full coverage of COVID-19 medical bills
Ministry of Manpower issued Updated Advisory on COVID-19 Vaccination at the Workplace
Decision announced that unvaccinated COVID-19 patients would be charged for medical bills from 8 December 2021
Statement pursuant to O 53 r 1(2) of the Rules of Court dated
Workforce Vaccination Measures came into effect
Removal of concession for unvaccinated employees to return to the workplace upon providing a negative Pre-Event Test result
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Susceptibility to Judicial Review
    • Outcome: The Unvaccinated Medical Bills Policy is amenable to judicial review, but the October Advisory is not.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Sufficient Interest (Standing)
    • Outcome: Applicants have sufficient interest in the Unvaccinated Medical Bills Policy.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Illegality
    • Outcome: The Unvaccinated Medical Bills Policy is not illegal.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Irrationality (Unreasonableness)
    • Outcome: The Unvaccinated Medical Bills Policy is not irrational.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Breach of Article 12(1) of the Constitution (Unlawful Discrimination)
    • Outcome: The Unvaccinated Medical Bills Policy does not breach Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
    • Category: Substantive
  6. Substantive Legitimate Expectation
    • Outcome: The Applicants are not entitled to declaratory relief for the Substantive Legitimate Expectation claims.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Quashing Orders
  2. Declarations

9. Cause of Actions

  • Judicial Review

10. Practice Areas

  • Public Law
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 809SingaporeCited for the criteria to obtain leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 883SingaporeCited for the purpose of the requirement to obtain leave for judicial review.
Lee Pheng Lip Ian v Chen Fun Gee and othersUnknownYes[2020] 1 SLR 586SingaporeCited for the aim of the requirement to obtain leave for judicial review.
Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs and others and other appealsUnknownYes[1988] 2 SLR(R) 525SingaporeCited for the basis of judicial review lies in the rule of law.
SGB Starkstrom Pte Ltd v Commissioner for LabourUnknownYes[2016] 3 SLR 598SingaporeCited for the qualified scope of the court’s intervention in judicial review.
Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of SingaporeUnknownYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 934SingaporeCited for the qualified scope of the court’s intervention in judicial review.
Tan Seng Kee v Attorney-General and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2022] SGCA 16SingaporeCited for the separation of powers is part of the Westminster constitutional model that Singapore adopts.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury CorporationUnknownYes[1948] 1 KB 223England and WalesCited for the role of a court in judicial review is distinct from its role as an appellate court.
Kang Ngah Wei v Commander of Traffic PoliceUnknownYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 14SingaporeCited with approval of Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury Corporation.
Lines International Holding (S) Pte Ltd v Singapore Tourist Promotion Board and anotherUnknownYes[1997] 1 SLR(R) 52SingaporeCited for the role of a court in judicial review is distinct from its role as an appellate court.
Re Dow Jones Publishing (Asia) Inc’s ApplicationUnknownYes[1988] 1 SLR(R) 418SingaporeCited for the distinction between a review of the decision-making process or the manner in which the power was exercised, as opposed to a review of the merits of the decision.
Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General and another matterUnknownYes[2016] 1 SLR 779SingaporeCited for the ambit of the court’s role in judicial review of executive action.
Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and anotherUnknownYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 582SingaporeCited for the ambit of the court’s role in judicial review of executive action.
Inland Revenue Commissions v National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses LtdUnknownYes[1982] 1 AC 617United KingdomCited for the ambit of the court’s role in judicial review of executive action.
Council of Civil Service Unions and others v Minister for the Civil ServiceUnknownYes[1985] AC 374United KingdomCited for the broad heads of judicial review in Singapore, namely, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
Tan Hon Leong Eddie v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2022] 3 SLR 639SingaporeCited for the High Court in Tan Hon Leong Eddie v Attorney-General [2022] 3 SLR 639 suggested that it falls within the ground of illegality (at [18]).
Attorney General v Datchinamurthy a/l KataiahCourt of AppealYes[2022] SGCA 46SingaporeCited for the Another recent case has proceeded on the basis that unconstitutionality satisfied the prima facie case of reasonable suspicion for granting the remedies without determining its classification: Attorney General v Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah [2022] SGCA 46 at [18].
Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-GeneralUnknownYes[2012] 4 SLR 698SingaporeCited for the An applicant under O 53 needs leave to make a principal application for a mandatory order, a prohibiting order or a quashing order, ie, the prerogative orders, but not to make a principal application for a declaration: Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General [2012] 4 SLR 698 at [32]; Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General [2013] 2 SLR 1108 at [82].
Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-GeneralUnknownYes[2013] 2 SLR 1108SingaporeCited for the An applicant under O 53 needs leave to make a principal application for a mandatory order, a prohibiting order or a quashing order, ie, the prerogative orders, but not to make a principal application for a declaration: Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General [2012] 4 SLR 698 at [32]; Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General [2013] 2 SLR 1108 at [82].
Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-GeneralUnknownYes[2012] 4 SLR 476SingaporeCited for the principles in relation to standing to seek declaratory relief are well-established.
Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public ProsecutorPrivy CouncilYes[1979]–[1980] SLR(R) 710SingaporeCited for the Equal protection requires that like be compared with like, and Art 12(1) contains the right to equal treatment with other individuals in similar circumstances: Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor [1979]–[1980] SLR(R) 710 at [35], per Lord Diplock in the Privy Council.
Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-GeneralUnknownYes[2012] 2 SLR 49SingaporeCited for the presumption of constitutionality applies to the acts of those who hold positions in public office.
Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor and another matterUnknownYes[2020] 2 SLR 95SingaporeCited for the starting point is that the acts by the executive “will not presumptively be treated as suspect” [emphasis added]: Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2020] 2 SLR 95 (“Saravanan”) at [154]; Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 SLR 476 at [26]–[28].
Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2021] 1 SLR 476SingaporeCited for the starting point is that the acts by the executive “will not presumptively be treated as suspect” [emphasis added]: Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2020] 2 SLR 95 (“Saravanan”) at [154]; Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 SLR 476 at [26]–[28].
Comptroller of Income Tax v ACCCourt of AppealYes[2010] 2 SLR 1189SingaporeCited for “a quashing order will not lie unless a public authority has done something that a court can quash or, in other words, deprive of legal effect”.
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appealUnknownYes[2019] 2 SLR 216SingaporeCited for the As the courts have recognised before, such scientific questions are generally not amenable to judicial resolution, “having regard to the limited methods, tools or standards that are properly at [the court’s] disposal
UKM v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2019] 3 SLR 874SingaporeCited for the As the Court of Appeal observed in UKM v Attorney-General [2019] 3 SLR 874 at [115], where there are clear statements from the executive on matters of policy, ie, statutory law governs the issue, the courts should be slow to intervene in its decision on public policy.
R (Dolan and others) v SSHSC and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2020] EWCA Civ 1605England and WalesCited for the In R (Dolan and others) v SSHSC and another [2020] EWCA Civ 1605 (“Dolan”), the High Court refused permission to apply for judicial review. In Dolan, the applicants challenged the COVID-19 “lockdown” on the basis that the regulations imposed unprecedented and unlawful restrictions on civil liberties.
R v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Eastside Cheese CoUnknownYes[1999] 3 CMLR 123England and WalesCited for the English Court of Appeal acknowledged the executive’s difficulty with decisions requiring urgency and analysis of medical and scientific issues, citing Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in R v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Eastside Cheese Co [1999] 3 CMLR 123 at [47] that “on public health issues which require the evaluation of complex scientific evidence, the national court may and should be slow to interfere with a decision which a responsible decision-maker has reached after consultation with its expert advisers” (at [89]).
Peters & Anor, R. (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & AnorUnknownYes[2021] EWHC 3182 (Admin)England and WalesCited for the In Peters & Anor, R. (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & Anor [2021] EWHC 3182 (Admin) (02 November 2021), the applicants sought leave to quash Regulation 5(3)(b) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021. Regulation 5(3)(b) precludes a worker from working in a care home unless he is vaccinated or was exempted on medical grounds. Mrs Justice Whipple dismissed the leave application.
Kassam v Hazzard and another matterSupreme Court of New South WalesYes[2021] NSWSC 1320AustraliaCited for the In Kassam v Hazzard and another matter [2021] NSWSC 1320 (“Kassam”), the applicants (who were unvaccinated by choice) sought judicial review of orders which prevented certain workers from leaving an area of residence or prevented people from working in construction, aged care, and education unless they were vaccinated with an approved COVID-19 vaccine.
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v LiHigh Court of AustraliaYes[2013] HCA 18AustraliaCited for the In considering the grounds of challenge raised in both proceedings it is important to note that it is not the Court’s function to determine the merits of the exercise of the power by the Minister to make the impugned orders, much less for the Court to choose between plausible responses to the risks to the public health posed by the Delta variant.
Monsanto v Canada (Health)Federal CourtYes[2020] FC 1053CanadaCited for the Aside from non-interference on matters relating to policy, the Canadian courts have emphasised the importance of deference to executive decision-making during times of emergency: see Paul Daly, ‘Governmental Power and COVID-19: The Limits of Judicial Review’, Flood et al: The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19 (University of Ottawa Press, 2020).

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 53 r 1(2) of the Rules of Court
Order 53 r 3(2) ROC

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Constitution of the Republic of SingaporeSingapore
Article 12(1) of the ConstitutionSingapore
s 377A of the Penal CodeSingapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Unvaccinated Medical Bills Policy
  • October Advisory
  • Multi-Ministry Taskforce
  • Judicial Review
  • Substantive Legitimate Expectation
  • COVID-19
  • Vaccination
  • Irrationality
  • Illegality
  • Article 12(1) of the Constitution

15.2 Keywords

  • Judicial Review
  • COVID-19
  • Vaccination
  • Singapore
  • Administrative Law
  • Unvaccinated Medical Bills Policy
  • October Advisory

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Judicial Review85
Administrative Law75
COVID-19 Policies70
Constitutional Law60
Public Health Law50
Health Care40
Employment Law30

16. Subjects

  • Administrative Law
  • Constitutional Law
  • Public Health Law
  • Civil Procedure