Re Application by Dow Jones (Asia) Inc.

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 26 November 1987
• Date: 26 November 1987
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 33 of 1987
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Re Application by Dow Jones (Asia) Inc

[1987] SGHC 45

T S Sinnathuray J

Originating Motion No 33 of 1987

High Court

Administrative Law–Remedies–Certiorari–Leave to apply forcertiorari and ancillary relief–Merits of application–Courts and Jurisdiction–Jurisdiction–Judicial review–Certiorari–Ancillary relief–Whether procedure adopted a correct one–Status of O 53 Rules of the Supreme Court 1970–Differences in O 53 Rules of the Supreme Court (UK)–Notice of motion and statement amended–Affidavit amended

The applicant sought leave to apply for orders of certiorari and for ancillary relief to quash an order made by the Minister of Communications and Information under s 16 of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap 206, 1985 Rev Ed) declaring theAsian Wall Street Journal (“AWSJ”) to be engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore, and an order by the Minister restricting the sale and distribution of the AWSJ to 400 copies until further notice. The application for leave was made under O 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 (“the RSC”). The Attorney-General raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the applicant was not entitled to seek orders of declarations in proceedings brought under O 53. It was also argued that the Minister's decision and order were not justiciable issues in the court, and therefore leave should be refused.

Held, granting the application in part:

(1) There was no provision in our substantive law or our rules of court relating to procedure for the court to make orders of declarations or give other ancillary reliefs in an application made under O 53 of the RSC. As such, the words “and ancillary relief” in the motion were ordered to be struck out: at [14]and [15].

(2) The whole purpose of requiring that leave should first be obtained to make the application for judicial review would be defeated if the court were to go into the matter in any depth at this stage. The court ought to grant leave if, on a quick perusal of the material, the court thought that it disclosed what might on further consideration turn out to be an arguable case: at [20] and [22].

Alfred Dunhill Ltd v Sunoptic SA [1979] FSR 337 (refd)

Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 (refd)

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed)Arts 4, 14

Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap 206, 1985 Rev Ed)ss 16, 16 (1),16 (4)

Rules of the Supreme Court1970O 53 (consd);O 41rr 5 (1), 6;O 53rr 1 (2),1 (3),1 (4),1 (5)

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1985Rev Ed)s 18 (2)

Rules of the Supreme Court1965 (UK) O 53 (consd)

Rules of the Supreme Court1977 (UK) O 53 (consd)

Supreme Court Act1981 (c 54) (UK)ss 29 (1),31 (1)

Louis Blom-Cooper QC and H E Cashin (Murphy & Dunbar) for the applicant

Tan Boon Teik and Jeffrey Chan (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

T S Sinnathuray J

1 In this application made by way of notice of motion dated 11 May 1987 in Originating Motion No 33 of 1987, the applicants, Dow Jones Publishing Co (Asia) Inc, ask for leave to apply for orders of certiorari and for ancillary relief to quash an order made by the Minister of Communications and Information under s 16 of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap 206) declaring the Asian Wall Street Journal to be engaging in domestic politics and a decision made by the Minister restricting the sale and distribution of the Asian Wall Street Journal in Singapore to 400 copies until further notice. The notice of motion states that the grounds are set out in two documents - the statement made pursuant to O 53 r 1 (2) and the affidavit of Mr Fred Lee Zimmerman, both filed on 11 May 1987.

2 Though it is not stated anywhere in the heading or in the body of the notice of motion commencing these proceedings under what rule of substantive law and/or procedure the application is made, it is clear from the documents filed in these proceedings, which I have referred to, that the application is made under O 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970. It is necessary, therefore, that I refer to the relevant rules.

3 Under r 1 (1), no application for an order of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari shall be made unless leave therefor has been granted in accordance with this rule. Rule 1 (2) states that an application for such leave must be made ex parte to the court and must be supported by a statement setting out the name and description of the applicant, the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought, and by affidavits, to be filed before the application is made, verifying the facts relied on. Rule 1 (3) provides that the applicant must give notice of the application for leave not later than the preceding day to the Attorney-General's Chambers and must at the same time lodge in those Chambers copies of the statement and affidavits. Under r 1 (4), the court or judge may, in granting leave, impose such terms as to costs and as to giving security as it or he thinks fit. And finally, under r 1 (5), the grant of leave under this rule to apply for an order of prohibition or an order of certiorari shall, if the court or judge so directs, operate as a stay of the proceedings in question until the determination of the application or until the court or judge otherwise orders.

4 In this application, as I have said, there is a statement made pursuant to r 1 (2). It sets out under the heading “Relief Sought” the following:

(a) An order of certiorari to quash the declaration of 9 February 1987. This refers to the order made by the Minister declaring the Asian Wall Street Journal to be a...