Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical Council

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChao Hick Tin JA
Judgment Date23 March 2000
Neutral Citation[2000] SGCA 17
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 144 of 1999
Date23 March 2000
Year2000
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselEngelin Teh SC, Thomas Sim and Juliana Lee (Engelin Teh & Partners)
Citation[2000] SGCA 17
Defendant CounselPhilip Fong, Chang Man Phing and Chua Sui Tong (Harry Elias Partnership)
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Subject MatterComposition of Disciplinary Committee,ss 40(4), 42(1) & 42(2) Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed),s 41(3) Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed),s 40(14) Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed),Apparent bias or reasonable suspicion or apprehension of bias,Audi alteram partem,Remedies,Administrative discretion,Whether applicant given right to be heard by Complaints Committee on allegation of advertising and promotion before charges framed against him,Natural justice,Nemo judex in causa sua,Whether charges framed relate to matters complained of,Whether decision of Complaints Committee to send matter for further inquiry before Disciplinary Committee unreasonable, irrational and disproportionate,Proportionality,Time frame within which applicant has to be informed of further inquiry by Disciplinary Committee,Certiorari,Whether time limit breached,Whether inquiry going beyond scope of complaint,Irrationality,Whether breach mere irregularity or sufficient to nullify disciplinary process,Unreasonableness,ss 40(14) & 41(5) Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed),Time frame for appointing Disciplinary Committee,Jurisdiction of Complaints Committee of Singapore Medical Council in conducting inquiries into complaints,Charges of advertising and promotion for further inquiry by Disciplinary Committee,Time limits,Administrative Law,Disciplinary proceedings

(delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

This appeal concerns the disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Singapore Medical Council (`SMC`), the respondent, against one Dr Jerry Tan Tiang Hin (`Dr Tan`), the appellant.
In the proceedings below, Dr Tan applied for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Complaints Committee of the SMC that certain matters arising from a complaint made to the SMC be referred to the Disciplinary Committee and also for an order of prohibition prohibiting the Disciplinary Committee of the SMC from holding an inquiry into two charges framed by the SMC against him touching his professional conduct. The application was dismissed by the High Court, and against the decision, this appeal is now brought.

Background

Dr Tan is an ophthalmologist and a registered medical practitioner under the Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Ed) (`MRA`). He owns and runs a clinic, Jerry Tan Eye Surgery Pte Ltd, at Gleneagles Medical Centre. At all material times, he owns one-third of the shares in a company called Excimer Centre Pte Ltd, which owns another company called Specialist Eyecare Pte Ltd. This latter company, in turn, owns an optical shop known as Specialist Eyecare Centre (`the optical shop`) as well as an eye clinic known as Specialist Eyecare Clinic (`the eye clinic`). The optical shop and the eye clinic are located next to each other at Great World City Shopping Mall situated at Kim Seng Road. The optical shop, which carries on the business of providing spectacles, contact lenses and other optical products, commenced business on 28 October 1997 and is managed by one Mr Francis Wong. The eye clinic commenced the practice of ophthalmology under one Dr Daniel Sim on 4 December 1997. The licence for the eye clinic was at all material times in the name of Dr Tan but was transferred to Excimer Centre Pte Ltd on 9 April 1999.

On 26 January 1998, an article under the title `New eyecare chain opens $2m shop in Singapore` appeared in The Business Times .
This article was based on an interview with Mr Francis Wong and alluded, amongst other things, to the optical shop having `a licensed eye clinic under the same roof`.

About two months later, on 8 April 1998, Dr Cheong Pak Yean (`Dr Cheong`), the president of the Singapore Medical Association (`the SMA`) at the time, wrote a letter of complaint relating to the optical shop and the eye clinic to the SMC.
We shall refer to this letter of complaint in detail shortly. The chairman of the Complaints Committee of the SMC, Dr Wong Poi Kwong, by a letter to Dr Tan dated 21 April 1998 forwarded a copy of this complaint and invited him to submit a written explanation on the complaint, and also informed him that his explanation and any accompanying enclosures could be used `as evidence in subsequent action`. Dr Tan replied by a letter dated 20 May 1998, providing the Complaints Committee with his explanation of the matters complained of by Dr Cheong and denying the allegations contained in Dr Cheong`s complaint, which, in Dr Tan`s own words, were `based on allegations of conflict of interest etc`.

About seven months later, on 18 December 1998, the Complaints Committee wrote to Dr Tan informing him that it had decided to place the matter before the Disciplinary Committee of the SMC.
Three months after this, on 25 March 1999, the SMC`s solicitors, Messrs Harry Elias Partnership, wrote to Dr Tan enclosing a notice of inquiry setting out the two charges that would be preferred against him. The charges are:

1 That you, Dr Jerry Tan Tiang Hin, are charged that sometime in January 1998, whilst the licensee of Specialist Eyecare Clinic at [num ]01-38A, 1 Kim Seng Promenade, Great World City, Singapore 237994 (`the Clinic`), and whilst a shareholder and director of Specialist Eyecare Centre at [num ]01-38, 1 Kim Seng Promenade, Great World City, Singapore 237994, which is a shop in the business of retail eyewear (`the Shop`), you did improperly attempt to profit at the expense of professional colleagues by advertising the services offered by the Clinic, to wit, you allowed and/or acquiesced to the publication of an article dated 26 January 1998 in The Business Times entitled ` New eyecare chain opens $2m shop in S`pore ` containing laudatory statements about the Clinic, and in relation to the facts alleged you have been guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect.

2 That you, Dr Jerry Tan Tiang Hin, are charged that sometime in January 1998, whilst the licensee of Specialist Eyecare Clinic at [num ]01-38A, 1 Kim Seng Promenade, Great World City, Singapore 237994 (`the Clinic`), and whilst a shareholder and director of Specialist Eyecare Centre at [num ]01-38, 1 Kim Seng Promenade, Great World City, Singapore 237994, which is a shop in the business of retail eyewear (`the Shop`), you did bring the medical profession into disrepute, to wit, you allowed and/or acquiesced to the Clinic being used in the promotion of the Shop in an article dated 26 January 1998 in The Business Times entitled ` New eyecare chain opens $2m shop in S`pore ` and in relation to the facts alleged you have been guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect.



The hearing before the Disciplinary Committee was fixed for 5 July 1999.
However, before that date, there was a flurry of correspondence between Dr Tan`s solicitors and the solicitors for the SMC regarding Dr Tan`s queries on the following matters: the completion date of the Complaints Committee`s inquiry into the matter, the members who would constitute the Disciplinary Committee and the minutes of the meeting at which it was decided to place the matter before the Disciplinary Committee. Dr Tan was not satisfied with the answers from the SMC, and on 12 June 1999 he filed an originating summons seeking judicial review of the Complaints Committee`s decision. In the originating summons, Dr Tan applied for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Complaints Committee that a formal inquiry be held by a Disciplinary Committee to hear the two charges and an order of prohibition prohibiting the Disciplinary Committee appointed by the SMC from holding an inquiry into the two charges and from making any orders in respect of the two charges against him.

Before the court below Dr Tan advanced mainly five grounds in support of his application for the order of certiorari and one ground for his application for the order of prohibition.
The trial judge hearing the application rejected all his grounds and dismissed the application. Against the decision of the learned judge, Dr Tan now brings this appeal. Before us counsel for Dr Tan raises the same grounds as were raised below. Principally, there are six grounds which we shall consider seriatim.

Powers of Complaints Committee

The first ground relates to the powers of the Complaints Committee in conducting an inquiry under s 40(14) of the MRA, which provides as follows:

A Complaints Committee shall inquire into the complaint or information and complete its preliminary inquiry not later than 3 months from the date the complaint or information is laid before it.



It is contended by counsel for Dr Tan that s 40(14) of the MRA limits the powers of the Complaints Committee in inquiring into a complaint.
In this case, the Complaints Committee was only entitled to inquire into the complaint raised by Dr Cheong and no further. Dr Cheong`s complaint only relates to the matter of Dr Tan`s shareholding in the optical shop and raised the question of whether by reason of this interest Dr Tan had compromised the independence expected of him as an ophthalmologist, as a potential conflict could arise between his duty to his patients and his financial interest in the optical shop. The Complaints Committee was not entitled to go beyond the scope of that complaint, as the complaint forms its terms of reference and demarcates the boundaries of its powers of inquiry. It could only inquire into the question of whether Dr Tan`s shareholding in the optical shop amounted to professional misconduct on the part of Dr Tan. The Complaints Committee, however, in inquiring into the complaint had ventured beyond the scope of Dr Cheong`s complaint, and went on to inquire into extraneous matters which resulted in the SMC framing the two charges against him: the first charge relating to advertising the services offered by the eye clinic, and the second charge relating to the use of the eye clinic in the promotion of the optical shop.

Counsel for the SMC does not dispute that under s 40(14) of the MRA the Complaints Committee was only entitled to inquire into the complaint laid before it.
However, his contention is that the matters raised in the two charges were a part of the complaint and the Complaints Committee was therefore entitled to inquire into those matters which it did, and consequently the SMC was entitled to frame the two charges for the inquiry before the Disciplinary Committee.

The learned judge was also of the view that the Complaints Committee in conducting the inquiry into the complaint must act within the scope of its power under s 40(14) of the MRA.
He said at [para ] 7 of his judgment:

I think that it is beyond dispute that the Complaints Committee must act within the scope of its powers as the Act may confer. Its duty under the Act obliges it to inquire into such complaint as the Chairman of the Complaints Committee may lay before it. It follows as a matter of common sense that it should focus on the complaint and nothing more. It is obvious that the Complaints Committee must not take into account matters that are extraneous and irrelevant to the complaint.



However, the learned judge then went further.
In the same [para ] 7, he continued:

It does not follow, however, that the Complaints Committee must be restrained from taking a broad and sensible view of the nature and context of the complaint. The
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 26 May 2011
    ...Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni, Re [2007] 1 SLR (R) 85; [2007] 1 SLR 85 (folld) Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical Council [2000] 1 SLR (R) 553; [2000] 2 SLR 274 (folld) Wee Harry Lee v Law Society of Singapore [1983-1984] SLR (R) 768; [1984-1985] SLR 41 (refd) Yong Vui Kong v AG [201......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 January 2020
    ...Ltd v Hwang Jae Woo [2011] 2 SLR 196 (refd) Tan Seet Eng v AG [2016] 1 SLR 779 (folld) Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical Council [2000] 1 SLR(R) 553; [2000] 2 SLR 274 (refd) Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore [2001] 2 SLR(R) 821; [2001] 4 SLR 25 (refd) Wellmix Organics (I......
  • Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 13 May 2009
    ...2004 Complaint, Professor Leong also gave the same confirmation in his affidavit. 48 In Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical Council [2000] 2 SLR 274 (“Jerry Tan”), the appellant (“Dr Tan”) was an ophthalmologist who had a financial interest in an optical shop and an eye clinic, both loc......
  • Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 26 May 2011
    ...conversely, if directory then any non-observance is not fatal. The Court of Appeal in Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical Council [2000] 1 SLR(R) 553 (“Tan Tiang Hin Jerry”) adopted (at [47]) the following approach in determining whether a statutory requirement is to be regarded as mand......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2019, December 2019
    • 1 December 2019
    ...ex parte Calveley [1986] 1 QB 424, cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical Council [2000] 1 SLR(R) 553 at [50]. 72 Lee Pheng Lip Ian v Singapore Medical Council [2019] SGHC 51 at [70]. 73 Lee Pheng Lip Ian v Singapore Medical Council [2019] SGHC......

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