Lim Teng Ee Joyce v Singapore Medical Council: Appeal Against Costs Order in Disciplinary Proceedings
Dr. Lim Teng Ee Joyce appealed to the High Court of Singapore against a costs order made by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) following disciplinary proceedings. Dr. Lim pleaded guilty to two charges but was acquitted of a third. The court, on 19 July 2005, allowed the appeal in part, reducing the costs Dr. Lim was required to pay, finding that the SMC's order to bear the costs of the whole inquiry was erroneous.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dr. Lim Teng Ee Joyce appeals a costs order by the SMC. The court allowed the appeal in part, reducing costs due to acquittal on one charge.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Medical Council | Respondent | Statutory Board | Costs order reduced | Partial | |
| Lim Teng Ee Joyce | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judicial Commissioner | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Dr. Lim, a dermatologist, was subject to disciplinary proceedings by the SMC following a patient complaint.
- The patient, Wendy Lim Ai Beng, consulted Dr. Lim for facial acne and skin problems between February and May 2003.
- Dr. Lim prescribed laser treatment, administered by her nurse, Ms. Evelyn Lee, on April 28 and May 29, 2003.
- The patient complained of pain during the May 29 treatment and later noticed fluid dripping from her cheek.
- Three charges of professional misconduct were brought against Dr. Lim under the Medical Registration Act.
- Dr. Lim pleaded guilty to the first two charges but defended the third charge, which related to improper management of treatment.
- The Disciplinary Committee acquitted Dr. Lim of the third charge but ordered her to pay all costs of the proceedings.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Teng Ee Joyce v Singapore Medical Council, OM 16/2005, [2005] SGHC 129
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Patient consulted Dr. Lim for treatment. | |
| Laser treatment prescribed for patient's left cheek. | |
| Patient received further laser treatment and complained of pain. | |
| Patient returned to Dr. Lim due to swelling. | |
| Dr. Lim was given notice of the charges. | |
| Dr. Lim notified the SMC that she would be pleading guilty to the first two charges. | |
| Dr. Lim submitted her mitigation. | |
| Hearing before the Disciplinary Committee commenced. | |
| Disciplinary Committee acquitted Dr. Lim of the third charge. | |
| Appeal heard by the court. | |
| Court allowed the appeal in part. |
7. Legal Issues
- Administrative Discretion
- Outcome: The court held that the notion of a completely subjective or unfettered discretion is contrary to the rule of law.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1988] SLR 132
- Costs in Disciplinary Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that principles on costs in normal civil proceedings are applicable to disciplinary processes and that an appellate tribunal is entitled to interfere with a costs order if it is manifestly wrong or exercised on wrong principles.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1994] 2 SLR 489
- [1992] 1 WLR 1207
- (1995) 36 NSWLR 440
- (1994) 152 NBR (2d) 230
- (1995) 36 NSWLR 77
- [2004] EWHC 2762
- (1985) 41 SASR 226
- Fairness in Disciplinary Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that it is inconsistent with principle and contrary to the notion of fairness for a disciplinary committee to punish a medical practitioner with costs if the practitioner is acquitted of a charge.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against costs order
9. Cause of Actions
- Professional Misconduct
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chng Suan Tze v Minister of Home Affairs | High Court | Yes | [1988] SLR 132 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the notion of a completely subjective or unfettered discretion is contrary to the rule of law. |
| Walton v McBride | Court of Appeal of New South Wales | Yes | (1995) 36 NSWLR 440 | New South Wales | Cited for the principle that the power to award costs should be exercised judicially. |
| Tullio v Maoro | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 489 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate tribunal is entitled to interfere with a costs order if it is manifestly wrong or was exercised on wrong principles. |
| Elgindata Ltd (No 2) | Not specified | Yes | [1992] 1 WLR 1207 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that costs should always follow the event unless the circumstances of the case warrant some other order. |
| Hasan v College of Physicians & Surgeons (New Brunswick) | New Brunswick Court of Appeal | Yes | (1994) 152 NBR (2d) 230 | New Brunswick | Cited as an example where costs were apportioned when a medical practitioner successfully defended one charge but was ordered to bear the costs of the whole inquiry. |
| Ohn v Walton | Court of Appeal of New South Wales | Yes | (1995) 36 NSWLR 77 | New South Wales | Cited for the principle that costs should follow the event unless the circumstances of the case require otherwise. |
| Gage v General Chiropractic Council | Administrative Court of the Queen’s Bench Division | Yes | [2004] EWHC 2762 | England and Wales | Cited as an example illustrating the need to make proper apportionment on costs in relation to a disciplinary inquiry. |
| Beard v Wilde | Not specified | Yes | (1985) 41 SASR 226 | South Australia | Cited for the principle that a medical practitioner should not be denied costs even if there was criticism of their practice if the charge was not established. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Costs order
- Professional misconduct
- Medical Registration Act
- Disciplinary Committee
- Mitigation plea
- Laser treatment
- Delegation of treatment
- Unfettered discretion
- Apportionment of costs
15.2 Keywords
- Singapore Medical Council
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Costs
- Medical Law
- Administrative Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Costs | 90 |
| Disciplinary Proceedings | 80 |
| Administrative Law | 75 |
| Medical Law | 60 |
| Legal Profession Act | 40 |
| Evidence Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Medical Law
- Regulatory Law
- Costs