Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 13 August 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGCA 41
• Date: 13 August 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 177 of 2014
• Published date: 18 August 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: The appellant in person
• Hearing Date: 26 May 2015
• Defendant Counsel: Chia Voon Jiet and Lua Jie Ying Kelly (Drew & Napier LLC)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Courts and Jurisdiction,Duty to provide reasons

Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court): Introduction

This appeal raised the question as to the duty of the court to provide reasons for its decisions. Ms Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie (“the Appellant”) brought the appeal against the decision of Tan Siong Thye J (“the Judge”) in Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore [2015] 1 SLR 708 (“the GD”).

Both the proceedings before the High Court and this court stemmed from Originating Summons No 699 of 2014 (“OS 699/2014”), the Appellant’s application that “[w]ritten Grounds of Decision shall be provided in respect of interlocutory hearings before this Honourable Court”.

On 26 May 2015, having considered the parties’ written and oral submissions, we dismissed the appeal. These are our grounds.

Background The Appellant’s candidature at the National University of Singapore

The Appellant was a Masters of Arts (Architecture) (“the Degree”) candidate at the National University of Singapore (“the Respondent”). In February 2005, the Appellant submitted her thesis to the Respondent for examination. However, she subsequently raised concerns about her supervisor, Dr Wong Yunn Chii (“Dr Wong”), and alleged that he planned to plagiarise her thesis for his personal project.

In June 2005, the Respondent convened a Committee of Inquiry (“COI”) to look into the Appellant’s complaints. The COI issued its report on 20 July 2005. Although the COI found that “Dr Wong did not comply fully with his duties of supervision”,¹ it nevertheless concluded that there was no evidence to support the Appellant’s complaints and that the proposed process of examination of the Appellant’s thesis was “fair and just and should be confirmed”.² The Respondent proceeded to examine the Appellant’s thesis.

In the meantime, and despite the COI’s findings, the Appellant continued to complain about the examination process. She also protested against the Respondent’s decision to send her thesis for examination.³

On 25 November 2005, the Respondent informed the Appellant that the examination of her thesis had been completed and that she would be awarded the Degree provided that she satisfied the following requirements within one month (eventually extended to 31 August 2006): make certain amendments to her thesis; submit her thesis in accordance with the Respondent’s existing rules – in particular, she was to upload her finalised thesis to the Respondent’s Digital Thesis Repository and provide a copy in PDF format; and submit the Electronic Thesis Submission Form – a standard requirement which all graduate research students were required to meet.

By August 2006, the Appellant had not satisfied the administrative requirements listed in [7(b)] and [7(c)] above. She also continued to protest against the sending of her thesis for examination. In her oral submissions in court, the Appellant informed us that her refusal to satisfy the administrative requirements was an extension of her dissatisfaction with the manner in which the examination of her thesis had been handled.

In a letter dated 11 August 2006, the Respondent informed the Appellant that she should provide written confirmation of her acceptance of the Respondent’s decisions to proceed with the examination of her thesis and satisfy the outstanding administrative requirements by 31 August 2006.⁴ This was reiterated in an email dated 30 August 2006.⁵

By 4 September 2006, the Appellant had not provided any written confirmation. Neither had she satisfied the outstanding administrative requirements. Therefore, by way of a letter dated 4 September 2006, the Respondent informed the Appellant that her candidature had ceased.⁶

The Appellant’s commencement of legal proceedings

On 8 August 2012, the Appellant filed a Writ of Summons in Suit No 667 of 2012 (“S 667/2012”). She was then represented by Mr Louis Joseph from M/s LF Violet Netto. She was suing the Respondent for breach of contract on the ground that the Respondent had wrongly terminated her candidature.

On 7 February 2013, the Statement of Claim was amended to include claims based on the torts of negligence, misfeasance in public office and intimidation. The facts relied on were substantially the same. At this point, the Appellant was represented by M/s Peter Low LLC.

The discovery application

On 28 June 2013, the Appellant filed Summons No 3299 of 2013, seeking discovery of: all documents evidencing the Respondent’s implementation and follow-up of the COI’s recommendations at paragraphs 22(a) and (b) of the COI report dated 20 July 2005 (which were that Dr Wong be censured for the manner in which he supervised the Appellant, and that appropriate steps be taken to ensure Dr Wong was fully aware of the role and duties of a supervisor to his student),⁷ including but not limited to any formal notice of censure issued to Dr Wong; all correspondence between members of the COI and administrative officers and agents of the Respondent writing on behalf of the COI to invite Dr Wong to provide his response to the COI on the complaints by the Appellant; the finalised and published project titled “Interactive Immersive Visualization of Commercial Square, Singapore” by Dr Wong in collaboration with Stephen K Wittkopf and Heng Chye Kiang (“the Research Project”);⁸ all documents and correspondence relating to the outcome of the “Application for a Research Grant” for the Research Project dated 26 January 2005, including but not limited to all documents and correspondence concerning the outcome of the application for research grant and funding disbursements pursuant to the Research Project; all correspondence amongst various parties relating to the marking, grading and amendment of the Appellant’s thesis; attachments from two emails between parties involved in the examination of the Appellant’s thesis; all documents and correspondence between the officers and agents of the Respondent and the Ministry of Education between 9 May 2011 and 15 August 2011; and all documents and internal correspondence between the Respondent’s employees and Dr Kong (one of the examiners) relating to the correspondence with the Ministry of Education regarding the termination of the Appellant’s candidature.

Parties appeared before the assistant registrar (“the AR”) on 22 July 2013. The AR reserved judgment. On 12 September 2013, the AR dismissed the Appellant’s application. He also issued his grounds for the decision. In particular, the AR found that (a) the Appellant had not pleaded that the Respondent acted in bad faith, and as such any documents which she sought in that respect amounted to fishing and (b) the documents relating to the correspondence with the Ministry of Education were subject to privilege.⁹

On 24 September 2013, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal against the AR’s decision in Registrar’s Appeal No 320 of 2013 (“RA 320/2013”). The matter was fixed before the Judge.

The Registrar’s Appeal and the leave application

Parties appeared before the Judge on 5 November 2013 after having tendered written submissions. The Judge dismissed the appeal.

On 11 November 2013, by Summons No 5875 of 2013 (“SUM 5875/2013”), the Appellant applied for leave to appeal against the Judge’s decision in RA 320/2013. The leave application was fixed for hearing on 15 January 2014. On 31 December 2013, the Appellant requested, by way of a letter, a copy of the Grounds of Decision for RA 320/2013.¹⁰ On 9 January 2014, the court replied indicating that the Appellant’s request was allowed. The Appellant was provided with the Judge’s minute sheet.

On 15 January 2014, parties appeared before the Judge. The Appellant requested to sit in for the hearing. The Judge allowed her request notwithstanding objections by counsel for the Respondent. After hearing submissions from the parties, the Judge dismissed the application for leave.

The Appellant’s requests for the Judge’s Grounds of Decision

Shortly after the Appellant’s leave application was dismissed, she changed solicitors twice in quick succession – first (back) to M/s LF Violet Netto on 21 January 2014 and then to M/s Advocatus Law LLP on 7 March 2014.

On 31 March 2014, the Appellant’s (new) solicitors, by way of a letter to the court, requested for the Judge’s Grounds of Decision for RA 320/2013, as well as his Notes of Argument and Grounds of Decision for SUM 5875/2013.¹¹ On 14 April 2014, the Appellant’s solicitors sent in a further letter, this time clarifying that they had received the Notes of Arguments for both hearings but had yet to receive any Grounds of Decision.¹²

On 23 April 2014, a letter was sent on behalf of the Registrar of the Supreme Court to the Appellant, stating the following:¹³

I am directed to inform parties that the Notes of Evidence for hearings on 5 November 2013 and 15 January 2014 have already been provided and there is no need for Grounds of Decision for this case.

In the meantime, in April and May 2014, the Appellant wrote to the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, essentially complaining that she did not receive any Grounds of Decision and requesting for a new hearing.¹⁴ On 21 May 2014, the Chief Executive (“the CE”) of the Supreme Court, on behalf of the Chief Justice, replied to the Appellant. In the letter, the CE essentially explained why the Appellant’s application and appeal were dismissed, reminded her that the AR’s decision had been explained in writing, and informed her that the court was unable to accede to her request for a new hearing.¹⁵

The Appellant’s application for written Grounds of Decision

On 22 July 2014, as stated above at [2], the Appellant applied by way of OS 699/2014 for “[w]ritten Grounds of Decision” to be provided “in respect of interlocutory hearings before this Honourable Court”.¹⁶ At this point, she had once again changed solicitors, this time back to M/s LF Violet Netto. The matter was...