Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council

Judgment Date26 May 2011
Date26 May 2011
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 1252 of 2010 (Summons No 521 of 2011)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Lim Mey Lee Susan
Plaintiff
and
Singapore Medical Council
Defendant

Philip Pillai J

Originating Summons No 1252 of 2010 (Summons No 521 of 2011)

High Court

Civil Procedure—Discovery of documents—Medical doctor commencing judicial review against medical council—Medical doctor seeking discovery of documents for use in judicial review proceedings—Whether documents sought were necessary for fairly disposing of case—Order 24 r 5 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

The applicant (‘the Applicant’) , a medical doctor, commenced judicial review proceedings against the Singapore Medical Council (‘SMC’) in Originating Summons No 1252 of 2010. The Applicant then brought this discovery application, pursuant to O 24 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) (‘the ROC’) , to require the Singapore Medical Council (‘SMC’) to produce various documents for the Applicant's use in those judicial review proceedings.

The documents sought by the Applicant fell into the following broad categories:

  1. (a) documents relating to the SMC's decision to, first, revoke the appointment of a Disciplinary Committee (‘1 st DC’) which heard a complaint against the Applicant and, second, appoint another Disciplinary Committee (‘2 nd DC’) to hear the same complaint (‘the First Category’) ;

  2. (b) documents relating to the SMC's appointment of the 1 st DC (‘the Second Category’) ; and

  3. (c) documents relating to the amendment of reg 42 of the Medical Registration Regulations (Cap 174, Rg 1, 2000 Rev Ed) (‘the Regulations’) which came into effect pursuant to the Medical Registration (Amendment) Regulations 2010 (S 528/2010) (‘the Third Category’) .

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) The adduction of fresh evidence in judicial review proceedings was necessarily limited because, in such reviews, the court did not make findings of fact based on evidence. The court's role in judicial review was limited to determining whether the SMC's action ought to be quashed or prohibited by reason of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety: at [6].

(2) The record in this judicial review included two material e-mails (‘the E-mails’) in which the members of the SMC first revoked the appointment of the 1 st DC and subsequently appointed the 2 nd DC. The E-mails are self-explanatory. The Applicant's case on judicial review on the ground of bias or reasonable apprehension of bias was founded, inter alia, on the SMC Registrar, a witness before the 1 st DC and two 1 st DC members receiving the E-mails. Discovery of the documents falling under the First Category was not necessary for fairly disposing the Applicant's case for judicial review on the record because the recipients of the E-mails were clearly identified. In particular, it was palpably evident that the SMC Registrar and the two members and a witness of the 1 st DC received the E-mails: at [8], [9] and [11].

(3) The Applicant was not alleging bias or apprehension of bias in the process by which the 1 st DC was appointed. The application for discovery of documents falling under the Second Category was therefore remote to the Applicant's challenge on the appointment of the 2 nd DC. This judicial review related to the 2 nd DC and all the core documents relating to the 2 nd DC which were required for the Applicant to make her case were in the record. The application for discovery of documents in the Second Category was therefore not necessary to fairly dispose of the Applicant's case on the record: at [12] and [13].

(4) In so far as the Applicant's challenge to reg 42 of the Regulations was based on it being contrary to natural justice, this might be determinedex facie on the content of the amended reg 42. In so far as the Applicant's submission of bias or apprehension of bias on the part of the SMC was founded on its content and legislative chronology, this was public record. The discovery application for documents falling under the Third Category was therefore not necessary for fairly disposing of the Applicant's case on the record: at [15].

[Observation: The court noted that there was some doubt as to whether the discovery process was applicable if an applicant for judicial review was seeking prerogative relief. There was some doubt in English law (prior to the 1977 amendments to O 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 (SI 1965 No 1776) (UK) ) as to whether discovery was permissible in judicial review proceedings in which prerogative remedies were sought. Neither party addressed the court on whether discovery was in principle available in these judicial review proceedings. In the court's view, however, whatever the historical position, discovery should, in principle, be available in all judicial review proceedings. As the English Law Commission had observed, O 24 r 1 of the ROC was unqualified in its application to ‘any party to a cause or matter’: at [3] and [4].]

Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2 QB 18 (refd)

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (refd)

O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 (refd)

Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland [2007] 1 AC 650 (refd)

Yip Kok Seng v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board [2010] 4 SLR 990 (refd)

Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed)

Medical Registration Regulations (Cap 174, Rg 1, 2000...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Re Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • June 29, 2012
    ... ... Miss Rankine had reported the applicants to the Law Society of Singapore on 21 December 2010. Her complaint, which was not relevant to the ... In the recent decision of Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council [2012] 1 SLR 701 at [46]–[48], in ... ...
  • Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • November 30, 2011
  • Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • May 26, 2011
    ...Law Society of Singapore v Nathan Edmund [1998] 2 SLR (R) 905; [1998] 3 SLR 414 (refd) Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council [2011] 4 SLR 147 (refd) Lloyd v Mc Mahon [1987] AC 625 (refd) London & Clydeside Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council [1980] 1 WLR 182 (refd) Low Cze Hong ......
  • Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Attorney-General
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • September 17, 2019
    ...agreed with this proposition, especially upon considering Philip Pillai J’s observation in Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council [2011] 4 SLR 147 (“Susan Lim”) at [4], that the text of O 24 r 1 ROC is “unqualified in its application” to any party to a cause or matter. Order 24 r 1 s......
2 books & journal articles
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2011, December 2011
    • December 1, 2011
    ...of the company's discovery obligations. Discovery in judicial review proceedings 8.30 In Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council[2011] 4 SLR 147 (Lim Mey Lee Susan), a distinction was drawn between discovery in ordinary civil actions and in proceedings for judicial review. The traditi......
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2019, December 2019
    • December 1, 2019
    ...[2020] 3 SLR 796 at [37]. 86 Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Attorney-General [2020] 3 SLR 796 at [38]. 87 [2007] 1 AC 650 at [2]. 88 [2011] 4 SLR 147 at [7]. 89 Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Attorney-General [2020] 3 SLR 796 at [44]. 90 Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Attorney-General [2020......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT