Judgment Header
Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council [2009] SGHC 115
Court DecisionSGHC
[2009] SGHC 115
[2009] SGHC 115
General Division of the High Court of Singapore13 May 2009OS 1756/2007
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 8 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
8Later cases and laws citing this decision
“ppeal held that whether the applicant has satisfactorily accounted for the delay is a fact-sensitive inquiry. The court cited Belinda Ang J (as she then was) in Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council [2009] SGHC 115 (“Chai Chwan”) where she held that there is no set formula to use in deciding whether a satisfactory acc”
“the AG to allow him to ascertain if its participation in the proceedings is warranted in order to secure the Government and the public’s interests. The cases of Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council [2009] SGHC 115 (“Chai Chwan”), Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council [2011] 4 SLR 156, and Lim Mey Lee Susan v”
“uick perusal of the material discloses what may on further consideration turn out to be an arguable case in favour of granting the applicant the relief claimed: Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council [2009] SGHC 115 (“Chai Chwan”) at [30]. An in-depth examination is inappropriate and the court is not permitted to resol”
“its inquiry within the specified period. However, in considering the predecessor provision of s 42(2) which is materially similar to s 42(2), the High Court in Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council [2009] SGHC 115 (“Chai Chwan”) was of the view that the wording of the predecessor provision allowed the CC to apply for”
“s are lacking. To illustrate the point, it set out cases where the reasons for the delay were apparent or given by the applicant. Further, Belinda Ang J held in Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council [2009] SGHC 115 at [14] that:”
Show 3 moreShow fewer
“ases, Counsel for the SMC submits that the present application does not fall within any of the established exceptions to bringing the application prematurely In Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council [2009] SGHC 115 (“Chai Chwan”), the High Court set out the exceptions to prematurity. Ang J (as she then was) held that”
“See Rayney Wong at [20] and Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council [2009] SGHC 115 at [70].”
“be relevant to the issue of whether the applicant can satisfactorily account to the court for his delay: see, for example, Per Ah Seng Robin at [54(a)], citing Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council [2009] SGHC 115 at [19]–[20].”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: OS 1756/2007
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2009-05-13
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.