Claims against public authorities must typically be pursued via judicial review under Order 53, except in cases with significant private law elements or specific exceptions.

Introduction

[1] This appeal concerns the appropriate procedure for use in judicial review.

[2] The facts of this case are as follows: The appellant was a Government officer attached to the Ministry of Culture, Arts and Tourism since 16 September 1993. He had a dispute with his superior and refused to turn up for work since 28 March 2001. On 25 January 2003, his solicitors wrote to the respondents enquiring about his employment status. They were informed on 7 February 2003 that the appellant was dismissed from the Government service since 25 October 2001 vide a gazette notification number 11898 dated the same day. About a year later, on 15 January 2004, the appellant filed a writ of summons and statement of claim against the respondents seeking the following reliefs:

(a) a declaration that his dismissal by the respondents is void and of no effect and that he is still a Government officer in the said Ministry;

(b) an inquiry be conducted into his salary and entitlement which he ought to receive as a Government servant;

(c) damages for wrongful dismissal;

(d) interest and costs.

[3] Responding to this, the respondents filed an application under O 18 r 19(1) (b) or (d) of the Rules of High 1980 (RHC) to strike out the appellant's writ and statement of claim on the ground that it is an abuse of the process of the Court by commencing a writ action rather than an application for judicial review under O 53 RHC.

[4] The High Court allowed the respondents' application to strike out the appellant's writ and statement of claim. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal and lost. He then sought leave to appeal from this Court. Leave was granted based on two questions of law for determination:

Question 1

Whether pursuant to the amendment to O 53 RHC 1980vide gazette notification PU (A) 342/2000 with effect from 22 September 2000, any application to challenge the decision of a public authority, can only be commenced by way of a judicial review under O 53 RHC 1980.

Question 2

Whether it is an abuse of the process of the Court to commence the proceedings by way of a writ and a statement of claim to challenge the decision of a public authority instead of filing an application for judicial review under O 53 RHC 1980 thereby evading the clear requirement of O 53 RHC 1980.

[5] The thrust of the appellant's argument is that O 53 RHC is not the only mandatory procedure for an aggrieved party against the decision of a public body to seek relief. He can proceed by way of a writ or an originating summons. He should not be restricted to apply for judicial review under O 53 RHC. He should be allowed greater flexibility of approach either by proceeding under O 53 RHC or by writ or originating summons.

[6] To fully appreciate this contention, let us begin by setting out the common law which accepts that the High Court has a supervisory jurisdiction over proceedings and decisions of inferior courts, tribunals and other bodies or persons who carry out quasi-judicial functions or charged with the performance of public acts and duties. The High Court does it by way of jud