YANG ING WOEI v SINGAPORE MEDICAL COUNCIL

Facts

A complaint was lodged against Dr Yang Ing Woei on 25 November 2021. On 20 April 2023 a Complaints Committee found that he had not breached the Singapore Medical Council's Ethical Code and decided to issue a letter of advice under s 49(1)(a) of the Medical Registration Act 1997, in its old Part 7 as in force up to 30 June 2022. The complainant appealed to the Minister for Health on 10 May 2023 under s 49(11) of the old Part 7. On 20 January 2025 the Minister allowed the appeal as regards Dr Yang and directed the Council to appoint a Disciplinary Tribunal. A Notice of Inquiry was served on him on 19 August 2025.

On 13 March 2026 Dr Yang filed Originating Application No 288 of 2026 against the Council alone, seeking declarations that the tribunal was invalidly constituted and the Notice of Inquiry invalid. His case was that the Medical Registration (Amendment) Act 2020 repealed the old Part 7 from 1 July 2022, that its saving provisions preserved only rights of appeal that had accrued before that date, and so the complainant had no right to appeal to the Minister. He had not sought judicial review of the Minister's decision.

Issues

1. Whether declaratory relief was appropriate where the applicant had not sought judicial review of the Minister's decision.
2. Whether the saving provisions in s 23 of the Medical Registration (Amendment) Act 2020 preserved the complainant's right of appeal to the Minister.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the originating application and awarded the Council costs of $22,000 (all in). It held that declarations were not appropriate and that, even had they been, Dr Yang's argument failed on the merits.

Reasoning

Applying the criteria in Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112, the court held that although framed as a challenge to the tribunal's constitution, the application in substance sought to nullify the Minister's decision. The proper route was judicial review against the Minister, with notice to the Attorney-General, and permission would have had to be sought by 20 April 2025. The Council had merely acted as a conduit in appointing the tribunal, as recognised in Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council [2012] 1 SLR 701. Neither the Minister nor the complainant was a party, so a declaration would not bind them and would leave the Council facing a ministerial direction it could not lawfully follow. The real controversy lay with the Minister, and the application was in substance a very belated judicial review. That alone was enough to dismiss it.

On the merits, s 23(2)(a) of the amending Act provides that the old Part 7 continues to apply to any complaint made before 1 July 2022. Dr Yang's complaint was such a complaint, so all of the old Part 7, including the appeal to the Minister under s 49(11) and the Minister's powers under s 49(13), still applied. There was no need to rely on s 23(2)(d) on accrued rights of appeal, and nothing supported saving the old regime only up to the committee's decision. That reading was confirmed by s 23(3), by the Second Minister for Law's statements in Parliament that existing cases would be resolved under the old regime, and by an SMC circular. Dr Yang's approach would also have been unworkable, since the new Part 7 review procedure did not fit a decision made under the old Part 7, and it would mean several reported appeals under the old Part 7 had been wrongly decided.

From the judgment