Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v AG

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 09 April 2012
• Date: 09 April 2012
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 196 of 2012
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Vellama d/o Marie Muthu

Plaintiff

and

Attorney-General

Defendant

[2012] SGHC 74

Philip Pillai J

Originating Summons No 196 of 2012

High Court

Administrative Law—Judicial review—Requirement of leave—Threshold for grant of leave—Whether threshold for grant of leave had been met—Order 53 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

The applicant averred that she was a resident voter of Hougang SMC who had previously sought financial advice and assistance from her then Member of Parliament of Hougang SMC (‘MP’), Mr Yaw Shin Leong (‘Mr Yaw’) of the Workers' Party. She averred that she had voted for Mr Yaw in the last general election.

She averred that on 15 February 2012, the Workers' Party declared that Mr Yaw had been expelled from the party. His parliamentary seat was thereafter declared vacant. As a result, the applicant averred that she had been deprived of an MP and that although she was being assisted by Workers' Party MPs from the adjacent Aljunied Group Representative Constituency (‘GRC’), she averred that they do not represent her vote. She averred that she had a right to be represented by an MP whom she had an opportunity of choosing.

She thus made this application to clarify the law and to seek the following reliefs:

1. (a) Declarations (‘the Declarations’)

   1. (i) ‘That the Prime Minister does not have unfettered discretion in deciding whether to announce by-elections in Hougang Single Member Constituency (‘SMC’)’; and

   2. (ii) ‘That the Prime Minister does not have unfettered discretion to decide when to announce by-elections in Hougang SMC and must do so within three months or within such reasonable time as this Honourable Court deems fit’; and

2. (b) A Mandatory Order enjoining the Prime Minister to ‘advise the President to issue a Writ of Election mandating by-elections in Hougang SMC pursuant to Article 49 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) and Section 24 (1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218, 2011 Rev Ed)’ and to ‘tender such advice within three months or within such reasonable time as the Honourable Court deems fit’ (‘the Mandatory Order’).

The judge heard parties in chambers on the issue of leave on 30 March 2012. During the proceedings, the Attorney-General's (‘the AG’) counsel took the position that while leave was not required for a declaration under O 15 r 16, O 53 did not permit the applicant to pray for the Declarations until and unless she had first obtained leave to apply for a prerogative order, ie, the Mandatory Order. Counsel for the applicant did not dispute the AG's counsel's position, but gave notice that if the court did not grant leave for the Mandatory Order application to be heard, he would be immediately filing an application under O 15 r 16 for the declarations sought above, for which no leave was required.

Held, granting the application for leave:

Leave was not granted unless the court was satisfied that: (a) the matter complained of was susceptible to judicial review; (b) the applicant had sufficient interest in the matter; and (c) the material before the court disclosed an arguable or prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in favour of granting leave. It was not disputed for the purposes of the leave application that the matter related to the performance of powers and duties which involved a public element and thus was susceptible to judicial review. It was also not disputed that the applicant had sufficient interest in the matter. The main issue was therefore whether the material before the court disclosed an arguable or prima facie case in favour of granting leave. Based on the material before the court, leave for the judicial review hearing was granted as the judge was of the view that the very low threshold for leave had been met: at [10] to [12] and [29].

[Observation: At the threshold, it appeared that declarations sought under O 53 were subject to the language of O 53 and required leave of court whilst declarations sought under O 15 r 16 did not require the leave of court but were subject to the normal requirements including locus standi and a live dispute.

The parties were directed to prepare further submissions on the above issue at the substantive hearing: at [14] to [18].]

Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts [1996] 1 SLR (R) 294; [1996] 1 SLR 609 (folld)

Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs [2006] 1 SLR (R) 582; [2006] 1 SLR 582 (refd)

Chng Suan Tze...