Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore

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

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”,1This is at para 10 of the COI’s report (Appellant’s Core Bundle (“ACB”) Vol 2 at p 196). 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”.2This is at para 21(c) of the COI’s report (ACB Vol 2 at p 200). 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.3ACB Vol 2 at p 212.

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 2006.4ACB Vol 2 at p 215. This was reiterated in an email dated 30 August 2006.5ACB Vol 2 at pp 216–217.

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.6ACB Vol 2 at p 226.

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),7ACB Vol 2 at p 200. 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”);8The Appellant alleged this was the “catalyst of this litigation” and that if the Research Project were disclosed, it would “enable [her] to demonstrate whether or not [her] concerns about the unauthorized use of [her] thesis as source material [were] justified” (see the Appellant’s Affidavit in Summons No 3299 of 2013 dated 28 June 2013 at p 12). 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.9ACB Vol 2 at pp 52–54.

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 320/2013.10ACB Vol 2 at p 85. 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...