Yip Kok Seng v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board

Woo Bih Li J:

[1] The plaintiff, Yip Kok Seng (“Mr Yip”) said that he is a registered acupuncturist with the defendant, The Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board (“the Board”) and not a full Traditional Chinese Medicine (“TCM”) physician. He runs a wellness centre at Block 463 #02-21 Crawford Lane known as the National and Electro Wellness Centre (“the Centre”).

[2] He had two primary complaints. The first was that the Board had acted ultra vires its powers when it acted on a complaint made by [B] on 2 May 2008 which was not supported by a statutory declaration as required by Reg 3(2) of the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners (Investigation of Complaints) Regulations (Cap 333A, Rg 4, 2002 Rev Ed).

[3] The second was that the Board lacked jurisdiction to investigate a second complaint dated 2 June 2008 by [B] because the conduct complained of was not performed in the course of a healing session under TCM methods.

[4] In his action, Mr Yip sought the following reliefs:

[5] At the hearing before me, Mr P Padman(“Mr Padman”), who was Mr Yip’s counsel, said he would withdraw prayer 4. Prayer 3 would also be withdrawn since I would be hearing the application before the Investigation Committee (“IC”) convened its hearing.

[6] Eventually, Mr Yip was not successful on the remaining prayers, ie, prayers 1 and 2. However, in the course of arguments, a preliminary point was raised which is of general importance.

[7] I will state some background facts briefly before I elaborate on the preliminary point.

[8] On 2 May 2008, [B] complained to the Board that Mr Yip had checked her private parts during her second appointment with him, without the presence of a female nurse, and that he had molested her.

[9] An Inspection Officer of the Board, Toh Keng Wang (“Mr Toh”) was then sent to the Centre on 6 May 2008 to look into the matter. Mr Toh said that the purpose of his visit was to inspect the Centre and the medical records maintained by Mr Yip to confirm whether [B] did attend at the Centre on the dates she mentioned and the type of treatment administered by Mr Yip. Mr Toh said that he informed Mr Yip that the Board had received a written complaint and he briefly described the nature of the complaint to him. Mr Toh requested to inspect [B]’s medical records which Mr Yip acceded to. Copies were made for Mr Toh. Mr Yip then denied molesting [B] on the day of her second appointment.

[10] On 8 May 2008, the Board replied to [B] to inform her that a complaint would have to be supported by a statutory declaration and enclosed a form of the statutory declaration for her use.

[11] On 2 June 2008, [B] lodged her complaint with the required statutory declaration.

[12] The Board was satisfied that the 2 June 2008 complaint disclosed a prima facie case for inquiry. Accordingly, on 17 June 2008, Mr Yip was notified of the 2 June 2008 complaint with a copy of that complaint and [B]’s statutory declaration. He was also invited to submit his written explanation to the Board.

[13] Thereafter, between 3 July to 20 August 2008, there ensued a series of correspondence between Mr Yip and the Board or the Board’s solicitors in which Mr Yip stated, inter alia, his explanation.

[14] On 30 December 2008, Mr Yip wrote to the Board to inquire about the status of the complaint. On 2 January 2009, the Executive Secretary of the Board replied that the Board had directed that the matter be referred to an IC. As mentioned above, the crux of Mr Yip’s complaint about this direction was that he was not performing a healing session using TCM methods.

[15] Ms Chew, counsel for the Board, raised the preliminary point that as regards prayer 1, the proper remedy was not a declaration but certiorari and therefore Mr Yip should have proceeded by way of O 53 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“O 53”). O 53 requires leave to be first granted. On the other hand, Mr Padman argued that Mr Yip was not seeking a quashing order so he was not obliged to apply for leave to make his application under prayer 1. This preliminary point is of general importance and took up a considerable part of the hearing.

[16] The preliminary point is founded on the bifurcated regime for obtaining remedies in an administrative law action. The prerogative remedies of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari are to be obtained via the procedure prescribed in O 53, which, as mentioned above, requires inter alia leave to be granted. Other remedies, including a declaration, are to be obtained via the normal originating processes. The two processes are exclusive – declaratory relief is not available under O 53: see the High Court decision in Re Application by Dow Jones (Asia) Inc [1987] SLR(R) 627 and the Court of Appeal decision in Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts [1996] 1 SLR(R) 294 at [5] and [6].

[17] Our O 53 derives from the pre-1977 O 53 in the English equivalent (“English O 53”) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965, with the distinction that it is (since 1994) begun by ex parte originating summons and not originating motion. The procedure is both uncertain and cumbersome. It is not clear whether certain processes applicable to ordinary originating summons, such as discovery, are applicable in addition to those prescribed under O 53. An applicant seeking both prerogative and ordinary remedies is obliged to proceed via two separate originating processes, and again it is not clear whether subsequent consolidation is possible. From the perspective of a public body, it enjoys the procedural protection in O 53, such as the requirement for leave and the limitation of time, in respect of actions for the prerogative remedies, but not in actions for other remedies. A detailed consideration of these procedural issues can be found in Lord Diplock’s leading speech in O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 (“O’Reilly”) at 280–282.

[18] In England, the position was changed in 1977 upon the recommendation of the Law Commission: see Report on Remedies in Administrative Law (Law Com No 73), 1976 Cmnd 6407; S.I. 1977 No. 1955. The English O 53 was deleted and replaced with a procedure known as “the application for judicial review”, under which the court can award declaratory and injunctive relief and damages as an alternative or in addition to the prerogative remedies. Reforms have also been made by other jurisdictions: see the Ontario Judicial Review Procedure Act (RSO 1990, c J1), s 2; the New Zealand Judicature Amendment Act 1972 (Act 130 of 1972), s 4; and the Malaysian Rules of the High Court 1980, O 53.

[19] It may be that reform is also needed in Singapore, but that is something for the Rules Committee to decide. For present purposes the bifurcated regime meant that I had to decide whether declaration was an appropriate relief for Mr Yip’s prayer 1, and similarly whether Mr Yip should have proceeded by way of certiorari and sought leave first.

[20] I should also observe that, because of our bifurcated regime, the ratio of O’Reilly, cited by Ms Chew, is inapplicable to Singapore. In that case, the House of Lords held that it would generally be contrary to public policy and an abuse of the process of the court for a plaintiff complaining of a public authority's infringement of his public law rights to seek redress by ordinary action. However, the basis of O’Reilly is the presence of a unified procedure by which all the remedies for the infringement of public law rights could be obtained. In Singapore, we do not have such a unified procedure. Even in Malaysia, where there is a unified procedure, it has been held by the Federal Court that an application for a declaration can sometimes be made by ordinary action: see YAB Dato’ Dr Zambry bin Abd Kadir & ors v YB Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu (Attorney General Malaysia, Intervener) [2009] 4 MLJ 24.

[21] I should also refer to Chan Hiang Leng Colin v PP [1994] 3 SLR(R) 209, which was again cited by Ms Chew. The relevant issue in that case was whether the Minister’s decision to prohibit certain publications could be challenged in a Magistrate’s Appeal from a conviction by the district court for possessing those publications. The High Court appeared to take the view that O’Reilly was prima facie applicable, but in the end decided that there was an exception because the parties were ad idem as to the court’s competence to decide all the issues raised. The correctness of this approach was not fully argued before me. For present purposes, I am content to reiterate that the basis of the O’Reilly principle is the existence of a unified procedure for judicial review. As mentioned, the procedure in Singapore is bifurcated, and hence the only preliminary question here is whether Mr Yip should have applied for certiorari under O 53.

[22] In the following passage in HWR Wade, Administrative Law, 5 Ed (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), written five years after the 1977 reforms, the learned author looks back and observes (at p 570) that:

[23] The two cases referred to were Vine v National Dock Labour Board [1957] AC 488 and Pyx Granite Co Ltd v Ministry of Housing and Local Government [1960] AC 260 (“Pyx Granite”). In the first case, a dismissed labourer sought a declaration that his dismissal was illegal, ultra vires and void. In the second case, a company sought declarations that a proposed development was in accordance with statute law, and that ministerial decisions refusing them permission in respect of part of their proposed development and granting permission subject to certain conditions in relation to other parts of their operations were of no effect. In both cases the declaratory relief sought was granted. Lord Goddard’s speech in the second case (which Lord Oaksey agreed with) included the following passage:

In O’Reilly, ([17] supra) at 246, Lord Diplock also observed in his leading speech that:

In support of this proposition, Lord Diplock referred to Lord Goddard’s speech in Pyx Granite, and Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation [1969] 2 AC 147.

[24] There is also the Malaysian case of Teh Guan Teik v Inspector General of Police & anor [1998] 3 MLJ 137 (“Teh Guan Teik”) which Mr Padman referred me to. There, Peh Swee Chin FCJ, after reviewing the authorities and referring to O 15 r 16 of the Malaysian Rules of the High Court, concluded at p 148 that:

The learned judge also said at p 150:

[25] I make no comment on the English judicial policy, described by Professor Wade, of encouraging litigants to circumvent the limitations of certiorari. But it appears to me that the expansive approach taken towards declaratory relief is justified by the wording of O 15 r 16 of our Rules of Court, which is similar to O 25 r 5 of the English Rules of the Supreme Court 1883 and O 15 r 16 of the Malaysian Rules of the High Court in Teh Guan Teik. Our O 15 r 16 reads as follows:

Therefore, on a plain reading of O 15 r 16, the fact that certiorari is or could be claimed is not a ground for refusing declaratory relief. The wide powers of the court to give declaratory relief also mean that there is likely to be a large degree of overlap between declaration and certiorari. The following exposition in HWR Wade & C F Forsyth, Administrative Law, 10 Ed (Oxford, 2009) at pp 480–481 on the utility of the declaration and the history of the remedy is also helpful:

[26] Ms Chew cited Punton and another v Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (No 2) [1964] 1 All ER 448 (“Punton”). In that case, the plaintiffs’ claims for unemployment benefit were dismissed by the National Insurance Commissioner. They then sought a court declaration that each of them was entitled to unemployment benefit. Apparently, the plaintiffs could have challenged the decision of the Commissioner by certiorari proceedings but they had to do so within six months of his decision. Having failed to do so, they sought the declaration.

[27] In the High Court, Philimore J decided he had jurisdiction to grant the declaration sought but he declined to do so. The plaintiffs appealed against his decision and the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance cross-appealed against his decision that there was jurisdiction to grant the declaration.

[28] The Court of Appeal decided that there was no jurisdiction to grant the declaration. Sellers LJ said at pp 454-455:

[29] Ms Chew also cited Eshah Binte Sa’at v Meriam Binte Sa’at & ors [1975] 2 MLJ 97. In that case, the Collector of Land Revenue had, in a distribution suit in respect of an estate, ordered that the defendant be registered as the proprietor of certain lots of land. The plaintiff commenced an action in court to have the Register of Titles rectified and her name be registered as the owner of those lots. The plaintiff then sought to amend her writ by seeking a declaration that she was entitled to the lots although the precise terms of her amendment was not made clear to the court. Abdul Razak J said at p 97:

He then referred to the judgment of Sellers LJ in Punton and said at p 98:

[30] For the purposes of reaching a decision, it was sufficient for me to note that Mr Yip’s complaint was that the Board acted ultra vires in investigating a complaint of molest in the course of a healing session which did not fall within the ambit of traditional Chinese medicine. If Mr Yip succeeded on this point, a declaration would suffice – an ultra vires decision is a nullity and after it is declared to be so there is nothing left to be quashed by certiorari. Also, since Ms Chew had informed me that the Board had, very properly, suspended further steps pending my decision and would abide by it, there was no need for certiorari.

[31] I should mention that Ms Chew did not argue that the Board was in any way vexed or otherwise prejudiced because Mr Yip did not proceed by way of O 53. She did make a policy argument that allowing Mr Yip to proceed by way of an ordinary originating summons would encourage future litigants to circumvent O 53. Such an argument was also raised in Drilex Systems Pte Ltd v Registrar of Companies & anor [1989] 2 SLR(R) 511 but the court there did not make a ruling on the argument. I was not persuaded by such an argument. The court is well equipped to handle such abuses of process as and when they arise.

[32] Moreover, in respect of prayer 2, the complaint was against Mr Toh’s investigation on 6 May 2008. That act had been completed and had no continuing legal effect which could be quashed. In the circumstances, I was of the view that a declaration would be the only possible remedy for that investigation, should I find that it was illegal.

[33] If I were to compel Mr Yip to proceed under O 53 for prayer 1, it would mean that he would have to proceed by way of two applications, instead of one, for prayers 1 and 2 respectively. I did not think it was right to order him to do so in the circumstances.

[34] Accordingly, I decided that declaratory relief was appropriate for the complaints made by Mr Yip in his prayers 1 and 2 and that he was not required to proceed by way of O 53 to obtain certiorari.

[35] As regards the substantive merits of prayer 1, I accepted the general principle stated in Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore [2006] 4 SLR(R) 934 that it should be for the IC to decide in the first instance whether it has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter brought before it.

[36] As regards prayer 2, the Board accepted that it could not act on a complaint without a statutory declaration. Although the Board purported to act on the 2 May 2008 complaint when Mr Toh was sent to the Premises to investigate, the Board took the position that under s 30(1) of the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (Cap 333A, 2001 Rev Ed) (“the Act”), its authorized officer could conduct investigations without a complaint. Section 30(1) states:

[37] I agreed that s 30(1) of the Act was not premised on a complaint being made. For that reason, I declined to make a declaration in terms of prayer 2.

[38] However, I was of the view that the scope of the power of the Board’s officer to investigate under s 30(1) of the Act is circumscribed by that provision and it did not empower Mr Toh to inspect medical records. I made this observation at the hearing and I also take this opportunity to remind the governing bodies of regulatory, professional and other organisations that they should ensure that they act in accordance with their power and duties under law. If they fail to do so, they should be prepared to acknowledge the fact.