1015:
This was conveyed to the respondent in a letter. The respondent sought leave to apply to quash the determination by the
Comptroller. The Court of Appeal held that the Comptroller's letter was no more than advice to the respondent, and did not amount to a legal determination that withholding tax was due from the respondent. Thus, technically speaking, there was no determination to quash and the respondent should have applied for a declaration instead. However, since the parties had accepted a ruling by the High Court that the Comptroller's letter did amount to a legal determination of the respondent's tax liability and the Comptroller had not questioned this aspect of the High Court's judgment, the Court of Appeal proceeded on the basis that the letter did contain a determination that was judicially reviewable. It said that, "given the particular circumstances of this case, for the court to require the respondent to recommence proceedings for a declaratory judgment would be to take an overly legalistic view of what procedural justice requires".
826:, providing information on the appellant's conviction and other records. Following a report by the Society's Inquiry Committee that a formal inquiry into the appellant's conduct was necessary, a Disciplinary Committee was appointed. The appellant successfully applied to the Disciplinary Committee to delete certain paragraphs of the statement of case which had been formulated against him by the Council of the Law Society, on the ground that the facts in those paragraphs did not appear in the Inquiry Committee's report. Consequently, three of the six charges against the appellant and a major portion of one other charge did not require investigation by the Disciplinary Committee. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Law Society applied to the High Court for an order of
4941:
1146:
28:
1393:
778:
1456:. c. 68 (UK)) to permit Webster to use the hall, the local council refused to do so as it did not agree with Webster's political views. The court made a declaration that Webster was legally entitled to use the hall at a certain time for the purpose of his election campaign, on the assumption that the local council would obey it. Nonetheless, the local council still refused to allow Webster use of the hall. It was held that a declaration is not a coercive order of the court and, accordingly, refusal to comply with it is not contempt.
927:
conclusion he came to without hearing the applicants' witnesses. He had thus misdirected himself on the law as to the nature of the evidence that was required to be produced to prove the export of the goods. Finally, there had been an insufficient inquiry which had resulted in a failure to take into account relevant considerations, and an investigation that was unfair to the applicant. The Court therefore made an order of prohibition against the
Director-General to prevent him from deducting money from the bankers' guarantees.
1317:
to do an act relating to the proceedings, or to quash the proceedings or any order made in them, the documents must be served on the registrar of the court and the other parties to the proceedings. The documents must also be served on the judge if his or her conduct is being objected to. If the Court is of opinion that any person who ought to have been served with the documents has not been served, the Court may adjourn the hearing on such terms as it may direct in order that the documents may be served on that person.
886:, was examined by the police authority's chief medical officer, who took the view that he was suffering from a mental disorder and thus unfit for duty. Godden was therefore placed on sick leave, although his own specialist found that he did not have any psychiatric illness. Subsequently, in January 1971, the police authority informed him that it would be appointing the chief medical officer to assess if he was permanently disabled, for the purpose of determining if he should be compulsorily retired. The
831:
should be a formal investigation by a
Disciplinary Committee. It was the duty of the Council of the Law Society to draw up the charges, and the duty of the Disciplinary Committee to hear and investigate the charges properly before the Committee in the statement of case. Thus, the appellant could not object that some of the charges against him were based on facts not mentioned in the Inquiry Committee's report. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
1907: (England): "Writs, not ministerially directed, (sometimes called prerogative writs, because they are supposed to issue on the part of the King,) such as writs of mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus, certiorari ... upon a proper case, they may issue to every dominion of the Crown of England. There is no doubt as to the power of this Court; where the place is under the subjection of the Crown of England; the only question is, as to the propriety."
1976:) ("SCA"), s. 19(3)(b): " District Court's jurisdiction ... shall not include — (a) any supervisory jurisdiction or revisionary jurisdiction; (b) any jurisdiction relating to the judicial review of any act done or decision made by any person or authority, including the issue of any of the following prerogative orders: (i) a Mandatory Order; (ii) a Prohibiting Order; (iii) a Quashing Order; (iv) an Order for Review of Detention ...".
975:
1524:... in proper proceedings, in which there is a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant concerning their legal respective rights or liabilities either asserts a legal right which is denied or threatened, or claims immunity from some claim of the defendant against him or claims that the defendant is infringing or threatens to infringe some public right so as to inflict special damage on the plaintiff.
1544:, which states: "The court may make binding declarations whether or not any other remedy is claimed." On the other hand, the relevant Singaporean provision is Order 15, rule 16, of the Rules of Court, which reads: "No action or other proceedings shall be open to objection on the ground that a merely declaratory judgment or order is sought thereby, and the Court may make binding declarations
3994:
1610:. Following law reforms in the United Kingdom in 1977, it became possible for the High Court of England and Wales to grant prerogative orders as well as a declaration or injunction in the same set of legal proceedings. As these reforms have not been followed in Singapore, the Singapore High Court is not empowered to grant injunctions under Order 53 of the Rules of Court.
1179:. Nonetheless, it may be argued that High Court should continue to apply a rule equivalent to section 3 of the Act to orders for review of detention because of the combined effect of Article 9(2) of the Constitution which should not be regarded as having been abridged unless the legislature has used clear and unequivocal language, and the following principle from
1509:
even where there is no longer any live issue which would affect the rights and duties of the parties themselves. However, the court cautioned that this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection and entertained only where there was a good public interest reason to do so. It is not yet known whether the
Singapore High Court will adopt a similar approach.
1536:(1995) where, so long as there existed a "real and present dispute between the parties as to the existence or extent of a legal right" and each of the parties to the litigation "would be affected by the determination of the issue", it was not necessary for the legal right to be vested in the parties. One of the reasons it came to this conclusion was that
1691:, they could not have acted while knowing they lacked the power to do so. Moreover, the plaintiff had not adduced any evidence of the financial damage it had incurred due to the denial of berths. It has been said that "the tort is of quite limited value and importance as a means of controlling the ordinary run of inadvertent government illegality".
3129:
3991:
1158:. If so, the court must assess if the authority has correctly established the existence or otherwise of these facts. However, if the power to detain is not contingent on precedent facts, the court's task is only to determine whether there exists evidence upon which the authority could reasonably have acted.
3126:
1585:(2010), the High Court expressed the view that due to the lack of a unified regime in Singapore for applying for prerogative orders and declarations, it was not an abuse of process for an applicant to seek redress for a public law right by way of a declaration instead of applying for a prerogative order.
452:
that date, changes to Order 53 of the Rules of Court permitted an application for a declaration to be made together with an application for one or more prerogative orders. However, the application for a declaration cannot be made unless the court grants leave for the prerogative orders to be applied for.
1581:(1987), held that it had no power to grant a declaration under Order 53 because a declaration is not a form of prerogative order. If a declaration was sought, it had to be applied for by way of writ if there were substantial factual disputes between the parties, or, if not, by originating summons. In
1564:
was unconstitutional. The High Court stated that a person who is asserting an infringement of a constitutional liberty must establish that he or she has not merely a sufficient interest but a substantial interest in the matter, that is, he or she must be alleging a violation of a fundamental liberty.
1388:
remedy as it was originally developed in court cases between private parties. Only the High Court may grant declarations in judicial review cases; although the
Subordinate Courts are generally empowered by the Subordinate Courts Act to grant declarations, a District Court exercises no judicial review
1337:
originating summons, supported, if possible, by an affidavit from the person being restrained which shows that the application is being made at his or her instance and explaining the nature of the restraint. If the person under restraint is unable to personally make an affidavit, someone may do so on
1097:
conspiracy to subvert and destabilise the country. The detention orders were subsequently suspended under section 10 of the Act, but the suspensions were revoked following the release of a press statement by the appellants in which they denied being
Marxist conspirators. Having applied unsuccessfully
866:
as under the Legal
Profession Act one of its purposes was "to maintain and impose the standards of conduct ... of the legal profession in Singapore", and the Council of the Society was empowered by the Act to formulate charges against advocates and solicitors whom the Inquiry Committee felt should be
1638:
law. While such a person would previously have had to take out a legal action for damages separately from any judicial review proceedings, since May 2011 it has been possible for a person who has successfully obtained prerogative orders or a declaration to ask the High Court to also award him or her
1316:
originating summons, the statement, the supporting affidavit, the order granting leave, and the summons by which the prerogative order is actually applied for, on all persons directly affected. Where the application relates to court proceedings and is intended to compel the court or a court official
1307:
Once leave is granted, an applicant moves on to the second stage and applies for a prerogative order by filing in the High Court a document called a summons within the legal proceedings already started earlier. This must be done between eight and 14 days after leave to do so is granted by the Court;
1228:
According to the
Government Proceedings Act, civil proceedings against the Government must be commenced against an appropriate authorised Government department. If there is no appropriate authorised Government department, or the person wishing to commence proceedings has reasonable doubt as to which
1196:
Since an order for review of detention is a remedy for establishing the legality of detention, it may not be used to challenge the conditions under which a person is held, if the detention itself is lawful. Moreover, an order can only be sought where a person is being physically detained, and not if
1014:
requirements imposed by section 45 of the same statute applied. As the respondent had not complied with the relevant withholding tax requirements with respect to the payments in question, the respondent was required to account to the
Comptroller for the amount of tax which should have been withheld.
724:
A mandatory order is an order of the High Court which commands a public body to perform a public duty, and is usually employed to compel public bodies to exercise the powers given to them. It may be used in combination with another remedy, most commonly a quashing order. In such a case, the quashing
429:
decision made by an authority. Obtaining a mandatory, prohibiting or quashing order is a two-stage process, as an applicant must be granted leave by the Court to apply for the order. The Court must find the existence of a proper public law issue and available grounds of review. Leave will be granted
2951:
AELA, s. 4(1)(a) ("Subject to the provisions of this section and of any other written law, the following
English enactments shall, with the necessary modifications, apply or continue to apply in Singapore: ... the English enactments specified in the second and third columns of the First Schedule to
1508:
status. Before the House of Lords, Salem argued that his appeal should still be heard as the question of law in his case was one of general public importance. The court held that it had discretion to hear an appeal which concerns an issue involving a public authority as to a question of public law,
1480:
under section 36(3) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the judge below, a majority of the Court of Appeal declined to make a declaration on the matter. It took the view that since there was no evidence that any chief constable had ever appointed an acting sergeant as a custody officer, the issue
1346:
originating summons, supporting affidavit, order of court and summons must be served on the person against whom the order is sought. Unless the Court directs otherwise, it is not necessary for the person under restraint to be brought before the Court for the hearing of the application. In addition,
1332:
The procedure for applying for an order for review of detention differs from that for obtaining a mandatory order, prohibiting order or quashing order because the latter orders are only available by leave of court, whereas an order for review of detention may be applied for without prior permission
1268:
and must be supported by a statement setting out the name and description of the applicant, the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought; and by an affidavit, to be filed when the application is made, verifying the facts relied on. In granting leave, the judge hearing the application for
1174:
was decided, the Application of English Law Act was enacted with the effect that only English statutes specified in the First Schedule of the Act continued to apply in Singapore after 12 November 1993. The Habeas Corpus Act 1816 is not one of these statutes, and so appears to have ceased to be part
1067:
he writ is a prerogative process of securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release from unlawful or unjustifiable detention, whether in prison or in private custody. By it the High Court and the judges of that court, at the instance of a subject aggrieved,
548:
very much a part of our judicial system". The inherent power of the High Court to review the decisions of inferior courts and other administrative bodies does not, however, extend to co-ordinate bodies. In other words, one High Court judge may not exercise judicial review over a decision by another
4126:
was added to the GPA, s. 2(2), by the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1997 (No. 7 of 1997), s. 6 and para. 8 of the 1st Sch. The change was not specifically explained in Parliament during the passage of the bill (Speech during the Second Reading of the Statutes (Miscellaneous
1276:
In addition, there is a time requirement which stipulates that leave shall not be granted to apply for a quashing order to remove any judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding for the purpose of its being quashed, unless the application for leave is made within three months after the date of
1257:
If a mandatory order, prohibiting order or quashing order is sought, the applicant must follow the procedure set out in Order 53 of the Rules of Court. In general, there are two stages. At the first stage, an applicant must obtain leave to apply for the prerogative order. This requirement prevents
1140:
In all cases provided for by this Act, although the return to any writ of habeas corpus shall be good and sufficient in law, it shall be lawful for the justice or baron, before whom such writ may be returnable, to proceed to examine into the truth of the facts set forth in such return by affidavit
1042:
I regard it as a matter of high constitutional principle that if there is good ground for supposing that a government department or a public authority is transgressing the law, or is about to transgress it, in a way which offends or injures thousands of Her Majesty's subjects, then anyone of those
451:
A declaration is a pronouncement by a court stating the legal position between the parties to an action, based on the facts that have been presented to the court. Before 1 May 2011, it was not possible to apply for prerogative orders and declarations in the same set of legal proceedings. Following
875:
A prohibiting order operates to prevent illegal action by a public authority from occurring in the first place. It may be granted by the High Court in cases where the applicant is aware that the authority is about to take an unlawful course of action, or to prevent the authority from repeating an
952:
and prohibition, already emphasized, is that they may be awarded to a member of the public without any special personal right. In other words, there is no restrictive requirement of standing on the part of an applicant. ... Consequently the court is prepared to act at the instance of a mere
830:
to direct the Disciplinary Committee to hear and investigate all the six charges against the appellant. The High Court granted the application, holding that under the Legal Profession Act, the Inquiry Committee's only function was to consider the matters before it and decide whether or not there
654:
of the sovereign. By the end of the 16th century, they could theoretically be sought by any aggrieved citizen. In 1938, the writs were abolished in the United Kingdom and replaced by prerogative orders with essentially the same names and functions. As a former British colony, Singapore inherited
1379:
In addition to prerogative orders, the equitable remedy of a declaration can be employed to control an excess of legal authority. A declaration is a pronouncement by a court stating the legal position between the parties to an action, based on the facts that have been presented to the court. In
1191:
In accordance with British jurisprudence no member of the executive can interfere with the liberty or property of a British subject except on the condition that he can support the legality of his action before a court of justice. And it is the tradition of British justice that judges should not
711:
having been issued in Singapore. Since paragraph 1 still empowers the High Court "to issue to any person or authority any ... order or writ for the enforcement of any right conferred by any written law or for any other purpose", it may be that the Court's power to issue an order equivalent to a
422:
A mandatory order is an order of the High Court commanding a public authority to perform a public duty, while a prohibiting order operates to prevent illegal action by an authority from occurring in the first place. A quashing order, the most commonly sought prerogative order, has the effect of
953:
stranger, though it retains discretion to refuse to do so if it considers that no good would be done to the public. Every citizen has standing to invite the court to prevent some abuse of power, and in doing so he may claim to be regarded not as a meddlesome busybody but as a public benefactor.
1613:
In addition, if civil proceedings are taken against the Government, section 27 of the Government Proceedings Act bars the High Court from granting injunctions against it. In place of an injunction, the Court may make a declaration concerning the parties' rights. The Court also may not make an
926:
As the Director-General was a public officer appointed by statute to discharge public duties, he was subject to an order of prohibition in an appropriate case. The Court found that on the affidavit evidence produced by the applicants, the Director-General could not reasonably have come to the
737:
his court does not by mandamus direct justices or any public body or anybody else upon whom a duty is cast, how and in what manner they are to perform their duty. They simply direct them by mandamus to perform their duty. I think also that even where the facts are all admitted, so that in the
1121:
discussion, the Court held that an objective rather than a subjective test should apply to the exercise of discretion by the authorities under sections 8 and 10 of the ISA. In other words, the executive could not insist that the exercise of the discretion was unchallengeable. The exercise of
1588:
With effect from 1 May 2011, it became possible to include an application for a declaration together with an application for one or more prerogative orders. However, the application for a declaration cannot be made unless the court grants leave for the prerogative orders to be applied for.
1153:
Section 3 of the Act thus "contemplates the possibility of an investigation by the court so that it may satisfy itself where the truth lies". The extent of the investigation depends on whether a public authority's exercise of the power to detain rests on the existence or absence of certain
1080:, which states: "Where a complaint is made to the High Court or any Judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained, the Court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the Court and release him."
1959:
SCJA, s. 18(1), states: "The High Court shall have such powers as are vested in it by any written law for the time being in force in Singapore." Section 18(2) continues: "Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the High Court shall have the powers set out in the First
890:
found that since the medical officer had previously formed the opinion that Godden was mentally disordered, he could not be impartial when assessing if Godden was permanently disabled. Thus, an order of prohibition should be issued to prohibit him from carrying out this assessment.
4192:
1674:
1363:
of showing that the detention is lawful. The standard of proof required to be achieved by the authority is the civil standard of a balance of probabilities, but "flexibly applied" in the sense that the degree of probability must be appropriate to what is at stake. Thus, in
1258:
unmeritorious applications from being taken against decision-makers by filtering out groundless cases at an early stage to prevent wastage of judicial time, and protects public bodies from harassment, intentional or otherwise. An application for such leave must be made by
1647:. The Court may give directions to the parties relating to the conduct of the proceedings or otherwise to determine whether the applicant is entitled to the relevant relief sought, and must allow any party opposing the granting of such relief an opportunity to be heard.
2650:
is a high prerogative writ of summary character for the enforcement of this cherished civil right of personal liberty and entitles the subject of detention to a judicial determination that the administrative order adduced as warrant for the detention is legally valid
3517:(C.A.), p. 298, para. 4: "These provisions give the High Court powers to make 'any other orders', including a declaration". See also the SCJA, 1st Sch., para. 14, which states that the High Court has "ower to grant all reliefs and remedies at law and in equity ...":
439:
An order for review of detention directs someone holding a person in detention to produce the detainee before the High Court so that the legality of the detention can be established. The power of the Court to require that this be done is specifically mentioned in
1341:
Upon the filing of the application, the Court may either make an order immediately, or direct that a summons for the order for review of detention be issued to enable all the parties involved to present arguments to the Court. If the latter course is taken, the
1240:
a list stating the Government departments which are authorised departments for the purposes of the Act, and the names and addresses for service of the solicitors for the departments. As of 7 December 2005, no such list had been published. For this reason, in
1277:
the proceeding or such other period (if any) as may be prescribed by any written law. However, the High Court may allow an application for leave to be filed out of time if the delay "is accounted for to the satisfaction of the Judge", as was the case in
728:
Since it is the responsibility of the High Court to determine the legality of a decision rather than its merits, it will not order a public body to take a certain course of action, but will merely enjoin it to perform its duty in a lawful manner. In
4392:
2395:
932:
1686:
had committed the tort by denying it berths for its ship conducting "cruises to nowhere" on which the main activity was gambling. The High Court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish this claim. Since the authorities had not acted
1026:, "t was not necessary that the applicant had to have a particular grievance arising out of the order complained about. It was sufficient that there had been an abuse of power which inconvenienced someone." In support of this rule, it cited
2825:
The act, on the part of a sheriff, of returning a writ of execution to the court from which it was issued together with a statement of how far its instructions have been carried out. Hence: the report of a sheriff on any writ of execution
738:
particular circumstances of a particular case – as my brother has pointed out in this case – there happens to be but one way of performing that duty, still the mandamus goes to perform the duty, and not to perform it in a particular way.
725:
order will set aside the unlawful decision, and the mandatory order will require the public body to reconsider the matter. A person who complies with a mandatory order cannot have legal proceedings taken against him or her for doing so.
508:
which individuals can apply for when challenging administrative actions and decisions, and failures to take action and make decisions. Where the exercise of statutory or other discretionary power by public authorities contravenes the
1347:
the Court may order that the person be released while the application is being heard. Once the Court decides to make an order for review of detention, it will direct when the person under restraint is to be brought before the court.
1548:
whether or not any consequential relief is or could be claimed." Hence, the Court concluded that its jurisdiction to make declarations is "confined to declaring contested legal rights of the parties represented in the litigation".
602:. All these remedies that the High Court may grant are discretionary. A successful claimant has no absolute right to a remedy. In deciding whether to grant a remedy, the Court will take into account factors such as the following:
1249:, the applicants should have done so against the Attorney-General. Nonetheless, the suit should not be dismissed as this was a procedural irregularity that could be cured by substituting the Attorney-General as the respondent.
921:
to quash such an order or decision are equally applicable to prohibition. The law in this field has reached the stage where the test as to amenability to prohibition is whether the tribunal concerned is exercising a public
1296:
application ... was not to embark upon any detailed and microscopic analysis of the material placed before it but ... to peruse the material before it quickly and appraise whether such material disclosed an arguable and a
1220:", 1983), that "very person within the jurisdiction enjoys the equal protection of our laws. There is no distinction between British nationals and others. He who is subject to English law is entitled to its protection."
916:
Prohibition will issue against any inferior court, tribunal or public authority to carry out any order or decision which is invalid under the law as being in excess of its authority to make. The principles applicable to
549:
High Court judge. In addition, there are no provisions in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act which confer on the Court of Appeal the power to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the High Court or – as pointed out in
2020:
Prior to the amendment taking effect in 2006, para. 1 of the 1st Sch. to the SCJA stated that the High Court had "ower to issue to any person or authority directions, orders or writs, including writs of the nature of
882:(1972) is an instance of a United Kingdom case in which an order of prohibition was issued to avert action that would not have complied with administrative law rules. In July 1970, Godden, a police chief inspector of
1354:
case that should be considered by the Court. Once this has been done, it is for the executive to justify the legality of the detention. One commentator has said that the applicant's task is to discharge his or her
1945:
By the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Act 2005 (No. 42 of 2005), ss. 2 and 6 and the 4th Sch., in force on 1 January 2006. Section 2 of the Act inserted s. 41B into the Interpretation
1516:(2005) – not a judicial review case – the Court of Appeal expressed the view that the applicant "must be asserting the recognition of a 'right' that is personal to him". It cited the House of Lords' decision of
659:
at independence and the Singapore courts continue to pay close attention to English cases. In Singapore, the prerogative orders were known by their traditional names until 2006, when the names were modernised.
1110:
was satisfied that the appellants' detention was necessary to prevent them from endangering, among other things, Singapore's security or public order, which was required by section 8(1) of the ISA before the
3530:"A declaration pronounces upon the existence or non-existence of a legal state of affairs. It does not have any coercive force as it does not contain any order which can be enforced against the defendant.":
1614:
injunction against a government officer if the effect of doing so would be to provide relief that could not be obtained against the Government directly. Section 2(2) of the Act makes it clear that the term
1459:
There is some authority to the effect that a court will not generally grant a declaration if it considers the issue at hand to be an academic question or one that is entirely hypothetical. For instance, in
3155:
4143:, p. 781, paras. 15–16). Note also the ROC, O. 53, r. 7(1), which expressly makes the Court's power to grant relief to an applicant in addition to a prerogative order or a declaration subject to the GPA.
1161:
The UK Habeas Corpus Act 1816 applied to Singapore by virtue of the Second Charter of Justice 1826, which is generally accepted to have made all English statutes and principles of English common law and
667:
Power to issue to any person or authority any direction, order or writ for the enforcement of any right conferred by any written law or for any other purpose, including the following prerogative orders:
1371:
said that given the seriousness of the allegations against a detainee and the consequences of the detention, "the court should not be satisfied with anything less than probability of a high degree".
663:
Following the change, paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, which is entitled "Prerogative orders", now states that the High Court possesses the following power:
1630:– that is, monetary compensation – if rules of public law have been breached by a public authority. In order to obtain damages, an aggrieved person must be able to establish a private law claim in
900:(1991), a company had removed a large quantity of cigarettes from a warehouse, ostensibly for loading on board a vessel to be exported. However, the alleged loading had not been supervised by the
1500:
told him that they had been informed that he had been refused asylum. Subsequently, Salem unsuccessfully sought leave to apply for judicial review of the Home Secretary's decision to notify the
5002:
475:– that is, monetary compensation – if rules of public law have been breached by an authority. In order to obtain damages, an aggrieved person must be able to establish a private law claim in
1059:
An order for review of detention directs someone holding a person in detention to produce the detainee before the High Court so that the legality of the detention can be established. In
1010:
took the position that payments made by the respondent to its subsidiaries pursuant to those swap agreements fell within the ambit of section 12(6) of the Income Tax Act, such that the
862:, this was no longer correct and that the courts had moved to a sufficient interest standard. The Court then went on to find that the Law Society had sufficient interest to apply for
448:. While the other prerogative orders may only be applied for with the court's permission, an order for review of detention may be applied for without prior permission from the court.
2674:
2952:
the extent specified in the fourth column thereof ..."), and s. 5(1) ("Except as provided in this Act, no English enactment shall be part of the law of Singapore."). See also
1043:
offended or injured can draw it to the attention of the courts of law and seek to have the law enforced and the courts in their discretion can grant whatever remedy is appropriate.
1988:
SCA, s. 52(1A)(a): "The jurisdiction of a Magistrate's Court ... shall not include jurisdiction to hear and try any action where — (a) there is no claim for any sum of money ...".
1496:
recorded in an internal file that Salem's asylum claim had been refused, but did not communicate the decision to him. Salem only found out when his income support ceased, and the
1129:– the response to the writ that a person holding a detainee had to give – was valid on its face, the court could not inquire further into the matter. However, section 3 of the UK
908:
of $ 130,241.30 on them. The company applied for an order of prohibition to bar the Director-General from proceeding to recover a sum of $ 130,241.30 by deducting it from several
1068:
command the production of that subject, and inquire into the cause of his imprisonment. If there is no legal justification for the detention, the party is ordered to be released.
3028:, A.C. 206 at 245, H.L. (UK), "that in English law every imprisonment is prima facie unlawful and that it is for a person directing imprisonment to justify his act". Both
1018:
As mentioned above in relation to prohibiting orders, the test for standing to apply for a quashing order is that of sufficient interest in the matter. The High Court in
5266:
971:
decision made by a public body, usually acting under some statutory authority. It is the most commonly sought of the prerogative orders in judicial review proceedings.
858:
noted that although the law had formerly required an applicant to show that he or she "has a legal specific right to ask for the interference of the Court" to obtain a
1389:
jurisdiction over acts or decisions of persons or authorities, and a Magistrate's Court cannot deal with any action in which there is no claim for any sum of money.
754:
refusing to allow the applicant to proceed with an appeal against an award made by the Collector of Land Revenue as the notice of appeal had been filed late, and a
560:
The effective scope of the principles of judicial review depends on how the Court chooses to exercise its discretion in pursuance of its supervisory jurisdiction.
4940:
4992:
164:
5036:
998:
Quashing orders may only be obtained against decisions which have some direct or indirect actual or ostensible legal effect, and not against mere opinions. In
912:
that had been lodged with Customs as security. As regards whether an order of prohibition could be obtained against the Director-General, the High Court said:
4476:
2004:
1577:, the appellants contended that a declaration might be obtained in proceedings taken under Order 53 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeal, following
1170:(including Singapore), unless they were unsuitable to local conditions and could not be modified to avoid causing injustice or oppression. In 1994, after
5099:
5241:
4866:
1512:
The Singapore courts have also yet to directly address the issue of the standing required to apply for a declaration in an administrative law case. In
1320:
The High Court has dispensed with the two-stage process and dealt with applications on the merits at the first stage in cases that involved only pure
904:. The Director-General of Customs and Excise subsequently concluded that the goods had never been exported, and requested that the company pay import
4377:
2979:
2972:
2707:
2700:
1333:
from the court. The procedure for doing so is set out in Order 54 of the Rules of Court. An application must be made to the High Court by way of an
5231:
4974:
1698:
if it can be shown that the authority has been guilty of "oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action" in the exercise of a public function.
1484:
However, at least in the UK, there are signs that the courts may be moving towards showing more flexibility in granting advisory declarations. In
5221:
615:
whether a remedy will have any practical effect, or whether the matter has become academic (in which case a remedy will usually not be granted);
5276:
4861:
1122:
discretion could be reviewed by the court, and the executive had to satisfy the court that there were objective facts justifying its decision.
1281:(2009). No such time limit requirements exist for mandatory or prohibiting orders, but such orders should be applied for without undue delay.
5236:
4964:
5023:
340:
1428:
A declaration is only as effective as the willingness of a public body to abide by the court's statement of the law in it, as it is not a
1133:
broadened the court's power by entitling it to examine the correctness of the facts mentioned in the return. The section stated, in part:
774:
to unconditionally approve the redevelopment plan for her property that she sought, and for a processing fee she had paid to be refunded.
5326:
1472:
to, among other things, enable chief constables throughout the country to know where they stood on a question of law with respect to the
4067:
4056:
3786:
5141:
5129:
4984:
4764:
4555:
4373:
3797:
2696:
2662:
1557:
1245:(2005), decided on that date, the High Court held that instead of instituting the action against the Minister for Home Affairs and the
1085:
1073:
441:
4651:
4600:
2842:
4584:
3916:
2919:
4045:
5136:
5071:
4921:
4328:
1799:
855:
810:(1985) is another example of a case where a mandatory order was granted by the High Court. The appellant, Lim Chor Pee, who was an
799:(now known as a mandatory order) to the Society to compel a Disciplinary Committee to investigate charges of wrongdoing against an
20:
3590:
5352:
5308:
5049:
5007:
2258:
Legal Profession Act (Cap. 217, 1970 Rev. Ed.), s. 39(1)(a), now the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, 1985 Rev. Ed.), s. 38(1)(a).
1504:
that his asylum claim had been rejected. He then obtained leave to appeal the matter to the House of Lords, but was then granted
4997:
3927:
1573:
Before May 2011, it was not possible to apply for prerogative orders and declarations in the same set of legal proceedings. In
1469:
1155:
1102:
to be issued, the appellants appealed against the ruling. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the narrow ground that the
2614:
The Laws of England: Being a Complete Statement of the Whole Law of England: Crown Proceedings to Deeds and Other Instruments
5347:
5282:
4733:
4711:
4688:
4544:
4521:
4252:
4211:
3760:
3583:
2786:
2429:
1930:
1861:
1748:
1473:
1449:
1368:
1007:
979:
5195:
4675:
Cane, Peter (1997), "The Constitutional Basis of Judicial Remedies in Public Law", in Leyland, Peter; Woods, Terry (eds.),
2292:
2226:
1112:
887:
876:
unlawful act. Like a quashing order, a prohibiting order is used to help maintain good standards of public administration.
4004:
525:
416:
4034:
2609:
2246:
1401:
758:
directing the Commissioner to hear the appeal. Relying on the above case, the High Court held that it could not grant a
514:
412:
36:
5246:
4856:
1904:
1694:
If a claimant establishes that a public authority's wrongful action amounts to a tort, he or she may be able to obtain
1246:
1138:
Judges to inquire into the Truth of Facts contained in Return. Judge to bail on Recognizance to appear in Term, &c.
1145:
930:
A person seeking to obtain a prohibiting order must demonstrate that he or she has a sufficient interest to do so. In
5261:
5104:
5044:
4916:
3480:
3347:
2723:
1090:
258:
1204:
Both nationals and non-nationals of a jurisdiction may apply for orders for review of detention. In the UK context,
5205:
1006:
agreements with Singapore banks or Singapore branches of foreign banks on behalf of its offshore subsidiaries. The
333:
270:
253:
5287:
5109:
4949:
2793:
A court officer's indorsement on an instrument brought back to the court, reporting what the officer did or found
2001:
1437:
1413:
990:
amounted only to advice, and so technically the Comptroller had taken no legal action that could be subject to a
554:
497:
396:
248:
3125:: see the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Responsibility of the Minister for Law) Notification 2011 (
436:
case of reasonable suspicion that the authority has acted in breach of administrative law rules is established.
5271:
5179:
4757:
293:
4135:(1991) in which the High Court held that an order of prohibition could be issued against the Government since
3207:
That is, a document that, in the first instance, is filed in court without notifying other interested parties.
2011:) ("ROC"), Order 53, rule 8, which states: "This Order is not applicable to the Subordinate Courts."
1149:
Form 111 of the Rules of Court (Cap. 322, R 5, 2006 Rev. Ed.), the format for an order for review of detention
4814:
3040:, pp. 110–111. Lord Atkin's dissenting opinion was subsequently accepted as correct by the House of Lords in
2884:
1501:
1230:
1205:
1027:
986:
held that a letter containing a determination by the Comptroller of Income Tax that a company was subject to
819:
771:
238:
4531:
Pinsler, Jeffrey, ed. (2005), "Order 53: Application for Order of Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, etc.",
766:
directing him to "consider and determine the application of the applicants according to law". Similarly, in
541:
5174:
5151:
4876:
4851:
4362:
4321:
R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd.
2207:
R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd.
2037:, or any others, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by any written law or for any purpose".
1917:
Jeffrey Pinsler, ed. (2005), "Order 53: Application for Order of Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, etc.",
1722:
1651:
1233:. This rule applies to judicial review proceedings in which prerogative orders or declarations are sought.
983:
852:
R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd.
529:
298:
4335:
Khera v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Khawaja v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
2976:
2870:
Khera v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Khawaja v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
2704:
1214:
Khera v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Khawaja v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
419:, and at its fullest may involve quashing an action or decision and ordering that it be redone or remade.
4926:
4809:
3122:
1445:
1409:
770:(2009), the High Court held that the applicant should not have asked for a mandatory order requiring the
326:
288:
243:
212:
701:
The amendment of the provision removed a specific reference to the High Court's power to issue writs of
5119:
5076:
4871:
1125:
In the course of its judgment, the Court of Appeal noted that at common law if the return to a writ of
656:
32:
27:
1606:
is an equitable private law remedy that restrains a public body from doing an act that is wrongful or
5256:
5156:
5086:
4911:
4898:
4888:
4750:
2806:
2768:
2413:
1950:), which requires the prerogative orders to be referred to by their modern names in all written laws.
1077:
937:
751:
510:
445:
707:, a remedy used to challenge a person's right to hold public office. There are no reported cases of
5321:
5303:
5146:
5114:
4721:
3744:
1184:
823:
782:
263:
5166:
4881:
4835:
4799:
4513:
4314:
4244:
3461:
2812:
2778:
2643:
2617:
2421:
1849:
1759:
1740:
1679:
1103:
790:
521:
501:
467:. In place of an injunction, the Court may make a declaration concerning the parties' rights. At
408:
404:
44:
1853:
1841:
1284:
The test for whether leave should be granted to an applicant was expressed by the High Court in
5124:
4906:
4830:
4794:
4027:
3849:
2954:
Victor Yeo (April 1994), "Application of English Law Act 1993: A Step in the Weaning Process",
1561:
1130:
1107:
415:. The Court's power to review a law or an official act of a government official is part of its
174:
169:
78:
3990:
ROC, O. 53, rr. 1(1)(a) and (b), inserted by the Rules of Court (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2011 (
1444:
racial nationalist political party, who wanted to hold an election meeting in a hall owned by
1392:
4064:
4053:
3783:
3779:
3020:
2242:
1541:
1453:
1405:
1360:
218:
201:
73:
3794:
957:
When the case was appealed, the sufficient interest test was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
5251:
4804:
4605:
4589:
3457:
2839:
1417:
811:
800:
595:
400:
384:
68:
3931:
1488:(1999), Salem, a citizen of Libya, was granted temporary admission to the UK to pursue an
544:. The Court noted that this jurisdiction had "existed historically at common law" and "is
8:
5226:
4281:
4042:
2999:
1520:(1977), which held that a plaintiff could not be granted a declaration unless he or she:
1270:
1167:
1031:
777:
579:
368:
194:
124:
3571:
2051:(6th ed.), Oxford; New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, pp. 453–470 at 457
1884:(6th ed.), Oxford; New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, pp. 205–236 at 219
5200:
4703:
4640:
Oliver, Dawn (January 2002), "Public Law Procedures and Remedies – Do We Need Them?",
4506:
4433:
4203:
3752:
3587:
3247:
3160:
3015:
2412:
2075:
1654:. To successfully make out the tort, a claimant must establish the following elements:
1640:
1309:
1003:
314:
179:
54:
3299:
1565:
The Court did not discuss the issue of standing in the context of administrative law.
5094:
4729:
4707:
4684:
4540:
4517:
4423:
4384:
4248:
4207:
3756:
2782:
2621:
2425:
2329:
1926:
1900:
1857:
1744:
1718:
1683:
1429:
1421:
1356:
901:
896:
815:
786:
651:
4289:
399:
is the branch of law that enables a person to challenge an exercise of power by the
4773:
4680:
4632:
4628:
4338:
4324:
4273:
4268:
3978:
3686:
3622:
3045:
3025:
2873:
2774:
2210:
1795:
1695:
1236:
The minister charged with responsibility for the Act is required to publish in the
1176:
1002:(2010), the respondent, a locally incorporated company, had arranged to enter into
599:
569:
388:
358:
206:
98:
40:
2900:
were repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1981 (c. 19) (UK), Sch. 1 Pt. VIII.
513:
or is unlawful under administrative law, various remedies may be available when a
4071:
4060:
4049:
4038:
3998:
3801:
3790:
3594:
3133:
2983:
2846:
2764:
2711:
2008:
1497:
1489:
1477:
1321:
1089:(1988), the appellants had been detained without trial under section 8(1) of the
1072:
The power of the Court to require that this be done is specifically mentioned in
1011:
987:
750:
to quash the decision of a Commissioner of Appeals of an Appeals Board under the
524:
controls the exercise of legislative and executive power, is part of the Court's
184:
155:
88:
4619:
Kolinsky, Daniel (December 1999), "Advisory Declarations: Recent Developments",
1229:
department (if any) is appropriate, proceedings should be commenced against the
4012:
3356:
1665:
it is foreseeable that the claimant would be harmed in some way by the act; and
839:
814:, had been convicted of several income tax offences and had been found to have
463:
remedy that restrains a public authority from doing an act that is wrongful or
83:
4193:
Lines International Holding (S) Pte. Ltd. v. Singapore Tourist Promotion Board
4031:
1675:
Lines International Holding (S) Pte. Ltd. v. Singapore Tourist Promotion Board
1197:
he or she is merely under some other form of restriction such as being out on
5341:
2625:
1465:
1117:
590:
459:
against the Government or one of its officers. An injunction is an equitable
379:
111:
93:
762:
in such terms. Instead, it quashed the Commissioner's decision and issued a
4131:(25 August 1997), vol. 67, cols. 1548–1558), but may have been prompted by
3048:, A.C. 952 at 1011 and 1025, H.L. (UK). Compare Rawlings, pp. 344–345.
2910:
1659:
1650:
A special tort that applies only against public authorities is the tort of
1163:
1106:
had not adduced sufficient evidence to discharge its burden of proving the
703:
505:
130:
16:
Types of legal orders applicable on Singapore Government's executive branch
4380:, 2 S.L.R.(R.) 525, C.A. (Singapore), archived from on 24 December 2011.
3912:
1880:
Peter Leyland; Gordon Anthony (2009), "Introduction to Judicial Review",
1644:
1493:
1385:
1299:
967:
883:
460:
432:
425:
189:
144:
4536:
3302:, 3 S.L.R.(R.) 507 at 518–520, paras. 22–24, H.C. (Singapore).
3196:
Ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd.
2798:
1922:
1603:
1540:
is regarded by some scholars as more consistent with rule 40.20 of the
1381:
991:
584:
537:
468:
456:
373:
138:
104:
4677:
Administrative Law Facing the Future: Old Constraints and New Horizons
4490:
2939:
1815:
698:
The Subordinate Courts are not empowered to grant prerogative orders.
4483:
4469:
3371:
The Order does not apply to the Subordinate Courts: ROC, O. 54, r. 9.
3100:
2727:
2496:
2166:
2113:
1973:
1476:, namely, whether it was unlawful to appoint an acting sergeant as a
1441:
1397:
1359:, following which the public authority detaining the applicant has a
1350:
The applicant has the initial burden of showing that he or she has a
1288:(2000), and approved by the Court of Appeal, in the following terms:
643:
392:
4601:"Judicial Review of Administrative Action by the Prerogative Orders"
4052:, supplemented by the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2000 (
4002:
3853:
2975:, S.L.R.(R.) 135 at 145, para. 17, H.C. (Singapore), archived from
1947:
4742:
2897:
2165:
Legal Profession Act (Cap. 217 , 1970 Rev. Ed.), now
2078:, 4 S.L.R.(R.) 934 at 965–966, para. 79, H.C. (Singapore).
1631:
1420:
that the candidate had a legal right to do so, did not amount to a
1260:
795:
574:
476:
363:
118:
4556:"Habeas Corpus and Preventive Detention in Singapore and Malaysia"
4122:
The reference to judicial review proceedings in the definition of
3742:
2663:"Habeas Corpus and Preventive Detention in Singapore and Malaysia"
689:(d) an Order for Review of Detention (formerly known as a writ of
4139:
in s. 27 of the Act did not include judicial review proceedings (
3500:
3498:
1627:
1505:
1265:
1094:
472:
455:
The Government Proceedings Act bars the High Court from granting
4450:
Yip Kok Seng v. Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board
3959:
Yip Kok Seng v. Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board
3619:
R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Salem
3341:
3 S.L.R.(R.) 648 at 673, para. 56, C.A. (Singapore), applied in
1583:
Yip Kok Seng v. Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board
1486:
R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Salem
1115:
could make detention orders against them. However, in a lengthy
974:
3673:
2 S.L.R.(R.) 1097 at 1101–1103, paras. 23–27, H.C. (Singapore).
3671:
Singapore Airlines Ltd v. Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
2640:
Yeap Hock Seng @ Ah Seng v. Minister for Home Affairs, Malaysia
1400:, London, now occupied by Theatre Peckham. In a 1983 case, the
909:
905:
4404:
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Minister for Information and the Arts
4393:
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Minister for Information and the Arts
3495:
3351:
1 S.L.R. 1 at 11–12, paras. 14–19, H.C. (Singapore). Contrast
2452:
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Minister for Information and the Arts
2396:
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Minister for Information and the Arts
2112:
Land Acquisition Act 1966 (No. 41 of 1966), now
1790:
4 S.L.R. 196 at 200–201, paras. 6–7, H.C. (Singapore), citing
1192:
shrink from deciding such issues in the face of the executive.
933:
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Minister for Information and the Arts
3793:), as amended by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2001 (
1252:
491:
1338:
his or her behalf, explaining the reason for the inability.
936:(1995), the High Court cited the following passage from Sir
5267:
Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019
4456:
UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Jurong Town Corporation
4196:
1 S.L.R.(R.) 52 at 97, para. 138, H.C. (Singapore), citing
3667:
British and Malayan Trustees Ltd. v. Sindo Realty Pte. Ltd.
3260:
UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Jurong Town Corporation
2447:
2445:
2046:
1879:
1839:
1678:(1997), the plaintiff, a cruise operator, claimed that the
1635:
1468:
were brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of members of the
1416:
by-election candidate to use the hall, while contrary to a
1198:
647:
606:
any prejudicial delay by the claimant in bringing the case;
568:
The remedies available in a judicial review action are the
480:
4284:, A.C. 942, P.C. (on appeal from Malaysia). See also
4003:
Chung Yoon Joo; Peh Aik Hin; Denise Wong (November 2011),
2454:
1 S.L.R.(R.) 294 at 299, paras. 10–12, C.A. (Singapore) ("
1756:
Haron bin Mundir v. Singapore Amateur Athletic Association
948:
One of the valuable features of the "public" character of
679:(b) a Prohibiting Order (formerly known as a prohibition);
3669:
1 S.L.R.(R.) 903 at 915, para. 31, H.C. (Singapore), and
2359:
R. v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Lain
1212:
protection only extends to British nationals, stating in
1047:
This passage was also approved by the Court of Appeal in
536:(2007) as inherent in nature, that is, deriving from the
4587:(1991), "Should Public Law Remedies be Discretionary?",
4286:
Kuddus v. Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary
3973:, pp. 995–996 and 998, paras. 20 and 25, distinguishing
3296:
Teng Fuh Holdings Pte. Ltd. v. Collector of Land Revenue
3183:
3181:
3042:
R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Rossminster
2442:
1141:...; and to do therein as to justice shall appertain ...
3262:
3 S.L.R. 94 at 106–107, paras. 35–37, H.C. (Singapore).
2099:
S.L.R.(R.) 203 at 207, para. 15, H.C. (Singapore); and
609:
whether the claimant has suffered substantial hardship;
3513:
SCJA, s. 18(2) read with para. 1 of the 1st Sch.: see
3190:
1 S.L.R.(R.) 133 at 142, para. 23, C.A. (Singapore) ("
2047:
Peter Leyland; Gordon Anthony (2009), "The Remedies",
1436:(1982), Webster was a parliamentary candidate for the
982:(IRAS), photographed in May 2006. In a 2010 case, the
4005:"Recent Amendments to Order 53 of the Rules of Court"
3647:
Karaha Bodas Co. LLC v. Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd.
3178:
2703:, 2 S.L.R.(R.) 525, C.A. (Singapore), archived from
2239:
R. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners, ex parte Cook
1842:"Filter Mechanisms: Rationing the Remedies Available"
1514:
Karaha Bodas Co. LLC v. Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd.
528:. The basis of this jurisdiction was affirmed by the
3060:
S.L.R.(R.) 346 at 348–349, para. 9, H.C. (Singapore)
2482:
2 S.L.R. 1189 at 1198, para. 21, C.A. (Singapore) ("
1668:
the claimant suffered damage as a result of the act.
1380:
contrast to the prerogative orders which are termed
850:
against the Disciplinary Committee. The Court cited
621:
whether the remedy will promote good administration.
5277:
Third-Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Act 2015
4414:
Salijah bte Ab Latef v. Mohd Irwan bin Abdullah Teo
3519:
Salijah bte Ab Latef v. Mohd Irwan bin Abdullah Teo
2279:
Leyland & Anthony, "The Remedies", pp. 456–457.
1464:(1992), proceedings against the Chief Constable of
1327:
1223:
965:The effect of a quashing order is to invalidate an
4867:Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Tribunal
4505:
4359:Re Lim Chor Pee, ex parte Law Society of Singapore
4349:Re Lim Chor Pee, ex parte Law Society of Singapore
4292:, 2 A.C. 122 at 144–145, para. 63, H.L. (UK).
3880:S.L.R.(R.) 627 at 632, para. 14, H.C. (Singapore).
3532:Bocotra Construction Pte. Ltd. v. Attorney-General
3521:2 S.L.R.(R.) 80 at 92, para. 52, C.A. (Singapore).
2913:(1994), "Cementing the Foundations: The Singapore
2191:Re Lim Chor Pee, ex parte Law Society of Singapore
2138:Re Lim Chor Pee, ex parte Law Society of Singapore
2103:at 4 S.L.R. 92 at 98, para. 21, H.C. (Singapore).
2072:Wong Keng Leong Rayney v. Law Society of Singapore
1984:
1982:
1626:At common law, there is no general right to claim
1308:beyond that, the leave lapses. The applicant must
1166:in force as at 27 November 1826 applicable in the
808:Re Lim Chor Pee, ex parte Law Society of Singapore
407:. The challenge is carried out by applying to the
355:remedies available in Singapore administrative law
2608:
1968:
1966:
1054:
5339:
5232:Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act 2015
4129:Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report
3961:4 S.L.R. 990 at 995, para. 16, H.C. (Singapore).
3954:
3952:
3534:2 SLR(R) 282 at 294, para. 28, C.A. (Singapore).
2571:1 W.L.R. 550 at 559, C.A. (England & Wales).
2569:R. v. Greater London Council, ex parte Blackburn
1592:
1556:(2011), the applicant sought a declaration that
1532:rather than the more flexible approach taken in
1036:R. v. Greater London Council, ex parte Blackburn
834:One of the issues before the Court of Appeal in
612:any impact the remedy may have on third parties;
5222:Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021
4720:
3930:Law Association, pp. 21–22, archived from
3272:Lai Swee Lin Linda v. Public Service Commission
3188:Public Service Commission v. Lai Swee Lin Linda
3002:, A.C. 662, P.C. (on appeal from Nigeria).
2763:
1979:
1916:
1662:, or while knowing that it had no power to act;
1286:Lai Swee Lin Linda v. Public Service Commission
4503:
4426:, 2 S.L.R.(R.) 106, C.A. (Singapore).
3080:
3078:
2467:Leyland & Anthony, "The Remedies", p. 454.
2361:2 Q.B. 864 at 882, D.C. (England & Wales).
1963:
1448:. Despite being required by provisions of the
5237:Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act
4758:
4728:(4th ed.), London: Sweet & Maxwell,
3949:
3715:Re S (Hospital Patient: Court's Jurisdiction)
3574:, 1 WLR 415, C.A. (England & Wales).
2660:
1875:
1873:
1568:
1534:Re S (Hospital Patient: Court's Jurisdiction)
789:, photographed in January 2012. In 1985, the
334:
3362:because there were factual disputes present.
3163:, S.L.R.(R.) 582, H.C. (Singapore).
2909:
2289:R. v. Kent Police Authority, ex parte Godden
1925:, pp. 1129–1141 at 1129, para. 53/1/1,
1273:and as to security as he or she thinks fit.
880:R. v. Kent Police Authority, ex parte Godden
646:and thus termed prerogative writs, that is,
5327:List of acts of the Parliament of Singapore
4726:Zamir & Woolf: The Declaratory Judgment
4197:
3544:Webster v. Southwark London Borough Council
3156:Chee Siok Chin v. Minister for Home Affairs
3075:
2861:
2859:
2857:
2855:
2088:
2086:
2084:
1434:Webster v. Southwark London Borough Council
1243:Chee Siok Chin v. Minister for Home Affairs
4765:
4751:
4374:Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs
4238:
3339:Pang Cheng Suan v. Commissioner for Labour
3250: at paras. 7–21, H.C. (Singapore).
2953:
2697:Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs
2213:, A.C. 617 at 630 and 639, H.L. (UK).
2093:R. v. Justices of Kingston, ex parte Davey
1870:
1734:
1618:includes proceedings for judicial review.
1528:The Court preferred the position taken in
1324:and where there were no factual disputes.
1253:Mandatory, prohibiting and quashing orders
1086:Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs
731:R. v. Justices of Kingston, ex parte Davey
492:Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court
341:
327:
4187:
4185:
3568:Vince v. Chief Constable of Dorset Police
2970:Lee Mau Seng v. Minister for Home Affairs
2920:University of British Columbia Law Review
2101:Borissik v. Urban Redevelopment Authority
1788:Ramalingam Ravinthran v. Attorney-General
1462:Vince v. Chief Constable of Dorset Police
768:Borissik v. Urban Redevelopment Authority
672:(a) a Mandatory Order (formerly known as
572:– the mandatory order (formerly known as
361:– the mandatory order (formerly known as
37:judicial review of administrative actions
5072:Singapore International Mediation Centre
4922:Presidential Council for Minority Rights
4618:
4577:
4553:
4512:(6th ed.), Oxford; New York, N.Y.:
4504:Leyland, Peter; Anthony, Gordon (2009),
4276:, A.C. 1129, H.L. (UK), applied in
3981:, 2 A.C. 237 at 280–282, H.L. (UK).
3058:Lau Lek Eng v. Minister for Home Affairs
2996:Eshugbayi Eleko v. Government of Nigeria
2852:
2081:
1899: (1759) 2 Burr. 834 at 855–856,
1848:(6th ed.), Oxford; New York, N.Y.:
1391:
1181:Eshugbayi Eleko v. Government of Nigeria
1144:
973:
776:
682:(c) a Quashing Order (formerly known as
520:Judicial review, the means by which the
26:
21:Remedies in Singapore constitutional law
5309:Integrated Electronic Litigation System
5100:Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act
4583:
4530:
4430:Chai Chwan v. Singapore Medical Council
3911:
3878:Re Application by Dow Jones (Asia) Inc.
3683:Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers
3244:Chai Chwan v. Singapore Medical Council
2616:, vol. 11 (3rd ed.), London:
1758:2 S.L.R.(R.) 494 at 500–501, para. 18,
1579:Re Application by Dow Jones (Asia) Inc.
1518:Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers
1279:Chai Chwan v. Singapore Medical Council
978:Revenue House, the headquarters of the
5340:
5242:Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act
5003:Relevant and irrelevant considerations
4639:
4182:
3546:QB 698, HC (QB) (England & Wales).
3095:
3093:
3014:, p. 670. See also the comment in the
2475:
2473:
2095:(1902) 86 L.T. 589 at 591, applied in
1996:
1994:
1840:Peter Leyland; Gordon Anthony (2009),
1810:
1808:
1470:Police Federation of England and Wales
1384:remedies, the declaration is called a
642:were originally only available to the
588:), and order for review of detention (
377:), and order for review of detention (
5283:Transboundary Haze Pollution Act 2014
4746:
4697:
4650:Tan, John Chor-Yong (December 1960),
4598:
4491:Cap. 322, 2007 Rev. Ed.
4489:Supreme Court of Judicature Act (
4484:Cap. 321, 2007 Rev. Ed.
4470:Cap. 121, 1985 Rev. Ed.
4406:1 S.L.R.(R.) 294, C.A. (Singapore) ("
4396:2 S.L.R.(R.) 627, H.C. (Singapore) ("
4351:S.L.R.(R.) 226, H.C. (Singapore). ("
4278:Shaaban bin Hussien v. Chong Fook Kam
4241:An Introduction to Administrative Law
3910:(C.A.), p. 298, paras. 5–6. See also
3854:Cap. 224, 2008 Rev. Ed.
3584:Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
3101:Cap. 121, 1985 Rev. Ed.
2728:Cap. 143, 1985 Rev. Ed.
2677:from the original on 15 December 2018
2497:Cap. 134, 2008 Rev. Ed.
2399:2 S.L.R.(R.) 627, H.C. (Singapore) ("
2167:Cap. 161, 2009 Rev. Ed.
2114:Cap. 152, 1985 Rev. Ed.
1974:Cap. 321, 2007 Rev. Ed.
1816:Cap. 322, 2007 Rev. Ed.
1814:Supreme Court of Judicature Act (
1737:An Introduction to Administrative Law
1474:Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
1450:Representation of the People Act 1949
1093:("ISA") for alleged involvement in a
980:Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
870:
625:
471:, there is no general right to claim
5196:Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act
4772:
4674:
2940:Cap. 7A, 1994 Rev. Ed.
2938:Application of English Law Act (
2535:(C.A.), pp. 1199–1202, paras. 25–32.
2270:(C.A.), pp. 1013–1014, paras. 43–45.
2140:S.L.R.(R.) 226, H.C. (Singapore). ("
888:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
5137:Prevention of Human Trafficking Act
4649:
4388:1 S.L.R.(R.) 774, H.C. (Singapore).
4152:Leyland & Anthony, pp. 464–465.
4083:Leyland & Anthony, pp. 220–221.
3717:Fam. 1, C.A. (England & Wales).
3649:1 S.L.R.(R.) 112, C.A. (Singapore).
3355:, pp. 104–105, paras. 29–31, which
3090:
2915:Application of English Law Act 1993
2896:The words represented by the first
2876:, A.C. 74 at 110, H.L. (UK) ("
2470:
2333:1 S.L.R.(R.) 774, H.C. (Singapore).
2193:S.L.R.(R.) 998, C.A. (Singapore) ("
2097:Re San Development Co's Application
1991:
1948:Cap. 1, 2002 Rev. Ed.
1805:
1208:disagreed with the suggestion that
744:Re San Development Co's Application
719:
13:
5247:Newspaper and Printing Presses Act
5008:Substantive legitimate expectation
4572:
4442:2 S.L.R. 1189, C.A. (Singapore) ("
4416:2 S.L.R.(R.) 80, C.A. (Singapore).
3924:Legal Systems in ASEAN – Singapore
1269:leave may impose such terms as to
960:
14:
5364:
5262:Personal Data Protection Act 2012
5050:Procedural legitimate expectation
4420:Ng Chye Huey v. Public Prosecutor
3348:Yong Vui Kong v. Attorney-General
3290:(C.A.), p. 141, para. 20, citing
2868:, pp. 563–564, para. 120, citing
2773:(7th ed.), St. Paul, Minn.:
2595:S.L.R.(R.) 533, H.C. (Singapore).
1715:Ng Chye Huey v. Public Prosecutor
1680:Singapore Tourism Promotion Board
1156:jurisdictional or precedent facts
534:Ng Chye Huey v. Public Prosecutor
47:which is housed in this building.
5206:Administration of Muslim Law Act
4939:
4656:University of Malaya Law Journal
4468:Government Proceedings Act (
4440:Comptroller of Income Tax v. ACC
4261:
4232:
4220:
4173:
4164:
4155:
4146:
4116:
4107:
4098:
4086:
4077:
4026:Supreme Court Act 1981 (now the
4020:
3984:
3964:
3901:
3892:
3883:
3871:
3859:
3843:
3838:Tan Eng Hong v. Attorney-General
3831:
3819:
3807:
3773:
3736:
3720:
3708:
3692:
3676:
3652:
3640:
3628:
3612:
3600:
3577:
3561:
3549:
3537:
3524:
3507:
3486:
3467:
3443:
3434:
3422:
3413:
3099:Government Proceedings Act (
2480:Comptroller of Income Tax v. ACC
2357:, pp. 781–782, para. 17, citing
2126:San Development Co's Application
1554:Tan Eng Hong v. Attorney-General
1446:Southwark London Borough Council
1410:Southwark London Borough Council
1292:he duty of the court hearing an
1224:Procedure for prerogative orders
1000:Comptroller of Income Tax v. ACC
838:was whether the Law Society had
5288:Workplace Safety and Health Act
4700:Judicial Remedies in Public Law
4606:University of Malaya Law Review
4452:4 S.L.R. 990, H.C. (Singapore).
4200:Judicial Remedies in Public Law
3840:3 S.L.R. 320, H.C. (Singapore).
3460:, (1948) 77 C.L.R. 191 at 210,
3404:
3395:
3383:
3374:
3365:
3332:
3323:
3314:
3305:
3281:
3265:
3253:
3237:
3228:
3219:
3210:
3201:
3166:
3148:
3139:
3115:
3106:
3063:
3051:
3005:
2989:
2963:
2945:
2932:
2903:
2890:
2832:
2757:
2745:
2733:
2717:
2689:
2654:
2632:
2598:
2586:
2574:
2562:
2550:
2538:
2526:
2523:1 S.L.R. 273, H.C. (Singapore).
2514:
2502:
2489:
2461:
2406:
2388:
2376:
2364:
2348:
2336:
2322:
2310:
2298:
2282:
2273:
2261:
2252:
2232:
2216:
2200:
2184:
2172:
2159:
2147:
2131:
2119:
2106:
2065:
2056:
2040:
2014:
1953:
1939:
1910:
1643:, damages, equitable relief or
1374:
1098:to the High Court for writs of
1022:held that to have standing for
486:
43:may be sought, are made to the
5353:Singaporean administrative law
5272:Silver Support Scheme Act 2015
5142:Protection from Harassment Act
5130:Section 377A of the Penal Code
4633:10.1080/10854681.1999.11427082
4508:Textbook on Administrative Law
4497:
4462:
4458:3 S.L.R. 94, H.C. (Singapore).
3504:Leyland & Anthony, p. 458.
3492:Leyland & Anthony, p. 461.
2223:R. v. Lewisham Union Guardians
2049:Textbook on Administrative Law
1889:
1882:Textbook on Administrative Law
1846:Textbook on Administrative Law
1833:
1821:
1781:
1769:
1728:
1708:
1639:"relevant relief", that is, a
1597:
1481:was academic or hypothetical.
1328:Orders for review of detention
1055:Orders for review of detention
822:wrote to the President of the
430:provided that an arguable and
1:
4533:Singapore Court Practice 2005
4299:
4179:ROC, O. 53, rr. 7(2) and (3).
3770:, p. 125, para. 24.
3661:, p. 120, para. 15. See also
3625:, 1 A.C. 450, H.L. (UK).
3390:Singapore Court Practice 2005
3380:ROC, O. 54, rr. 1(2) and (3).
3311:ROC, O. 53, rr. 2(1) and (2).
3274:SGHC 162, H.C. (Singapore) ("
2000:See also the Rules of Court (
1919:Singapore Court Practice 2005
1593:Remedies that are unavailable
1502:Department of Social Security
1303:case of reasonable suspicion.
1063:(1969), the High Court held:
902:Customs and Excise Department
772:Urban Redevelopment Authority
746:(1971), the applicant sought
5348:Legal procedure of Singapore
5152:Undesirable Publications Act
4965:Exclusion of judicial review
4652:"Habeas Corpus in Singapore"
4599:Huang, Su Mien (July 1960),
4482:Subordinate Courts Act (
4477:Cap. 322, R 5, 2006 Rev. Ed.
4341:, A.C. 74, H.L. (UK) ("
4229:, pp. 97–98, paras. 139–142.
3816:, pp. 125–126, paras. 24–25.
3175:, pp. 595–596, paras. 23–27.
3072:, pp. 539–541, paras. 15–20.
2754:, pp. 542–554, paras. 43–86.
2742:, pp. 537–542, paras. 29–42.
2002:Cap. 322, R 5, 2006 Rev. Ed.
1972:Subordinate Courts Act (
1792:Re Racal Communications Ltd.
1652:misfeasance in public office
1492:claim. One month later, the
1432:to ignore a declaration. In
650:that could be issued at the
7:
4927:Singaporean nationality law
3868:, pp. 325–327, paras. 8–13.
3689:, A.C. 435, H.L. (UK).
3294:(H.C.), para. 44. See also
2607:, p. 538, para. 10, citing
2385:, pp. 793–794, para. 57–58.
2345:, pp. 771–780, paras. 1–12.
2156:, pp. 228–238, paras. 4–43.
1684:Port of Singapore Authority
1658:the public authority acted
618:the merits of the case; and
563:
10:
5369:
5077:Singapore Mediation Centre
3917:"Government and the State"
3898:ROC, O. 5, rr. 3 and 4(2).
3784:S.I. 1998 No. 3132 (L. 17)
3780:Civil Procedure Rules 1998
3572:[1992] EWCA Civ 19
3476:, p. 124. See also p. 128
3392:, p. 1144, para. 54/1-9/2.
2547:(C.A.), p. 1202, para. 33.
2511:(C.A.), p. 1199, para. 23.
1721:, 2 S.L.R.(R.) 106,
1621:
1569:Procedure for declarations
657:English administrative law
33:Supreme Court of Singapore
18:
5317:
5296:
5257:Payment Services Act 2019
5214:
5188:
5165:
5085:
5062:
5035:
5016:
4983:
4957:
4948:
4937:
4897:
4844:
4823:
4787:
4780:
2583:(C.A.), p. 299, para. 10.
2559:(H.C.), p. 633, para. 12.
2439:(H.C.), p. 632, para. 11.
1408:held that the refusal of
1113:Minister for Home Affairs
1078:Constitution of Singapore
1008:Comptroller of Income Tax
752:Land Acquisition Act 1966
446:Constitution of Singapore
5322:Sources of Singapore law
5304:Electronic Filing System
5115:Organised Crime Act 2015
4724:; Woolf, Jeremy (2011),
4702:(4th ed.), London:
4668:
4304:
4243:(4th ed.), Oxford:
4070:26 February 2018 at the
3795:S.I. 2001 No. 256 (L. 7)
3751:(3rd ed.), London:
3749:The Declaratory Judgment
3733:, pp. 124–125, para. 22.
2956:Asia Business Law Review
2845:27 December 2011 at the
2767:, ed. (1999), "return",
2420:(4th ed.), Oxford:
2249:) (England & Wales).
2181:, pp. 239–240, para. 46.
1701:
824:Law Society of Singapore
783:Law Society of Singapore
781:The headquarters of the
630:The ancient remedies of
526:supervisory jurisdiction
417:supervisory jurisdiction
231:common law jurisdictions
4993:Fettering of discretion
4554:Rawlings, H.F. (1983),
4514:Oxford University Press
4436:, H.C. (Singapore).
4434:[2009] SGHC 115
4095:, p. 995, paras. 17–19.
4059:21 January 2012 at the
4037:7 February 2012 at the
4011:: 30–32, archived from
3997:3 February 2014 at the
3800:21 January 2012 at the
3747:; Jeremy Woolf (2002),
3665:, p. 93, paras. 57–58,
3248:[2009] SGHC 115
3161:[2005] SGHC 216
2813:Oxford University Press
2076:[2006] SGHC 179
1850:Oxford University Press
867:formally investigated.
818:. On 16 July 1982, the
816:tampered with a witness
716:has not been impaired.
281:civil law jurisdictions
219:Patent unreasonableness
165:Fettering of discretion
5037:Procedural impropriety
4539:, pp. 1129–1141,
4378:[1988] SGCA 16
4290:[2001] UKHL 29
4282:[1969] UKPC 26
4127:Amendments) Bill,
4028:Senior Courts Act 1981
3789:1 January 2012 at the
3452:, pp. 113–114, citing
3300:[2006] SGHC 93
3021:Liversidge v. Anderson
3000:[1931] UKPC 37
2982:2 January 2014 at the
2973:[1971] SGHC 10
2770:Black's Law Dictionary
2701:[1988] SGCA 16
2661:H.F. Rawlings (1983),
2642:2 M.L.J. 279 at 281,
2295:(England & Wales).
2229:(England & Wales).
1526:
1454:12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6
1425:
1402:Queen's Bench Division
1369:Lord Bridge of Harwich
1305:
1247:Commissioner of Police
1194:
1150:
1143:
1131:Habeas Corpus Act 1816
1070:
1045:
995:
955:
924:
894:In the Singapore case
812:advocate and solicitor
804:
801:advocate and solicitor
740:
696:
578:), prohibiting order (
367:), prohibiting order (
175:Nondelegation doctrine
170:Legitimate expectation
79:Exhaustion of remedies
48:
5105:Internal Security Act
4998:Precedent fact errors
4917:Internal Security Act
4857:Judicial independence
4698:Lewis, Clive (2009),
4578:Articles and websites
4424:[2007] SGCA 3
4408:Chan Hiang Leng Colin
4398:Chan Hiang Leng Colin
4339:[1983] UKHL 8
4325:[1981] UKHL 2
4274:[1964] UKHL 1
4054:2000 No. 2092 (L. 16)
4048:11 April 2012 at the
4009:Singapore Law Gazette
3979:[1983] UKHL 1
3908:Chan Hiang Leng Colin
3687:[1977] UKHL 5
3623:[1999] UKHL 8
3515:Chan Hiang Leng Colin
3458:[1948] HCA 33
3046:[1979] UKHL 5
3026:[1941] UKHL 1
2874:[1983] UKHL 8
2724:Internal Security Act
2710:26 April 2012 at the
2618:Butterworth & Co.
2581:Chan Hiang Leng Colin
2557:Chan Hiang Leng Colin
2456:Chan Hiang Leng Colin
2437:Chan Hiang Leng Colin
2401:Chan Hiang Leng Colin
2211:[1981] UKHL 2
1905:Court of King's Bench
1796:[1980] UKHL 5
1719:[2007] SGCA 3
1575:Chan Hiang Leng Colin
1542:Civil Procedure Rules
1522:
1395:
1290:
1189:
1148:
1135:
1091:Internal Security Act
1065:
1049:Chan Hiang Leng Colin
1040:
1020:Chan Hiang Leng Colin
977:
946:
914:
884:Kent Police Authority
854:(1981), in which the
780:
735:
733:(1902), it was held:
665:
279:Administrative law in
229:Administrative law in
74:Delegated legislation
30:
5252:Pawnbrokers Act 2015
4683:, pp. 242–270,
4198:Clive Lewis (1992),
4170:ROC, O. 53, r. 7(4).
4161:ROC, O. 53, r. 7(1).
3345:, paras. 27–32, and
3329:ROC, O. 53, r. 2(5).
3234:ROC, O. 53, r. 1(6).
3225:ROC, O. 53, r. 1(4).
3216:ROC, O. 53, r. 1(2).
2714:on 24 December 2011.
2495:Income Tax Act (
2062:ROC, O. 53, r. 6(1).
1798:, A.C. 374 at 384,
502:executive government
69:Administrative court
31:A night view of the
5227:Income Tax Act 1947
5110:Misuse of Drugs Act
5063:Alternative dispute
4704:Sweet & Maxwell
4239:Peter Cane (2004),
4227:Lines International
4204:Sweet & Maxwell
3975:O'Reilly v. Mackman
3937:on 18 November 2008
3828:, p. 123, para. 19.
3753:Sweet & Maxwell
3705:, p. 120, para. 15.
3701:, p. 483, cited in
3320:ROC, O. 53, r.2(3).
2927:(1): 205–246 at 208
2838:Habeas Corpus Act (
2612:, ed. (1952–1964),
2373:, p. 782, para. 18.
2225:1 Q.B. 498 at 500,
2128:, p. 208, para. 17.
2007:1 July 2010 at the
1778:, p. 134, para. 53.
1766:, p. 130, para. 48.
1762:(Singapore) and in
1735:Peter Cane (1986),
1168:Straits Settlements
1032:Master of the Rolls
910:bankers' guarantees
582:), quashing order (
500:is to regulate the
371:), quashing order (
195:Fundamental justice
35:. Applications for
4950:Administrative law
4824:Legislative branch
4781:Constitutional law
4206:, pp. 59–64,
4015:on 2 February 2014
3729:, p. 22, cited in
3593:7 May 2012 at the
3558:, pp. 706 and 708.
3292:Lai Swee Lin Linda
3288:Lai Swee Lin Linda
3276:Lai Swee Lin Linda
3192:Lai Swee Lin Linda
3132:2 May 2014 at the
2986:on 5 January 2012.
2673:: 324–350 at 330,
2418:Administrative Law
1854:438–452 at 447–448
1830:, p. 138, para 63.
1426:
1238:Government Gazette
1151:
1004:interest rate swap
996:
942:Administrative Law
871:Prohibiting orders
805:
638:, prohibition and
626:Prerogative orders
570:prerogative orders
555:Subordinate Courts
498:administrative law
397:administrative law
359:prerogative orders
315:Constitutional law
180:Procedural justice
61:General principles
55:Administrative law
49:
41:prerogative orders
5335:
5334:
5095:Arms Offences Act
5058:
5057:
4935:
4934:
4862:Judicial officers
4735:978-0-414-04135-6
4713:978-1-84703-221-8
4690:978-1-85431-689-9
4560:Malaya Law Review
4546:978-981-236-441-8
4523:978-0-19-921776-2
4385:Re Fong Thin Choo
4269:Rookes v. Barnard
4254:978-0-19-926898-6
4213:978-0-421-41030-5
4137:civil proceedings
4124:civil proceedings
4104:GPA, s. 27(1)(a).
3762:978-0-421-71710-7
3464: (Australia).
3440:Rawlings, p. 343.
3419:ROC, O. 54, r. 5.
3410:ROC, O. 54, r. 4.
3401:ROC, O. 54, r. 2.
3194:(C.A.)"), citing
3018:of Lord Atkin in
2840:56 Geo. 3, c. 100
2788:978-0-314-24130-6
2667:Malaya Law Review
2431:978-0-19-876078-8
2330:Re Fong Thin Choo
1932:978-981-236-441-8
1863:978-0-19-921776-2
1750:978-0-19-825484-3
1696:exemplary damages
1616:civil proceedings
1430:contempt of court
1422:contempt of court
1357:evidential burden
1183:(1931) stated by
944:(4th ed., 1977):
897:Re Fong Thin Choo
787:South Bridge Road
517:action is taken.
351:
350:
5360:
5027:unreasonableness
4975:Threshold issues
4955:
4954:
4943:
4815:Attorney-General
4788:Executive branch
4785:
4784:
4774:Law of Singapore
4767:
4760:
4753:
4744:
4743:
4738:
4716:
4693:
4681:Blackstone Press
4663:
4645:
4635:
4614:
4594:
4567:
4549:
4526:
4511:
4475:Rules of Court (
4361:S.L.R.(R.) 998,
4313:S.L.R.(R.) 533,
4293:
4265:
4259:
4257:
4236:
4230:
4224:
4218:
4216:
4189:
4180:
4177:
4171:
4168:
4162:
4159:
4153:
4150:
4144:
4120:
4114:
4111:
4105:
4102:
4096:
4090:
4084:
4081:
4075:
4024:
4018:
4016:
3988:
3982:
3968:
3962:
3956:
3947:
3945:
3944:
3942:
3936:
3921:
3905:
3899:
3896:
3890:
3889:ROC, O. 5, r. 2.
3887:
3881:
3875:
3869:
3863:
3857:
3847:
3841:
3835:
3829:
3823:
3817:
3811:
3805:
3777:
3771:
3765:
3740:
3734:
3724:
3718:
3712:
3706:
3696:
3690:
3680:
3674:
3656:
3650:
3644:
3638:
3632:
3626:
3616:
3610:
3604:
3598:
3581:
3575:
3565:
3559:
3553:
3547:
3541:
3535:
3528:
3522:
3511:
3505:
3502:
3493:
3490:
3484:
3471:
3465:
3454:Wright v. Wright
3447:
3441:
3438:
3432:
3426:
3420:
3417:
3411:
3408:
3402:
3399:
3393:
3387:
3381:
3378:
3372:
3369:
3363:
3336:
3330:
3327:
3321:
3318:
3312:
3309:
3303:
3285:
3279:
3269:
3263:
3257:
3251:
3241:
3235:
3232:
3226:
3223:
3217:
3214:
3208:
3205:
3199:
3185:
3176:
3170:
3164:
3152:
3146:
3143:
3137:
3123:Minister for Law
3119:
3113:
3110:
3104:
3097:
3088:
3082:
3073:
3067:
3061:
3055:
3049:
3009:
3003:
2993:
2987:
2967:
2961:
2959:
2958:(4): 69–75 at 72
2949:
2943:
2936:
2930:
2928:
2907:
2901:
2894:
2888:
2863:
2850:
2836:
2830:
2828:
2822:
2820:
2795:
2761:
2755:
2749:
2743:
2737:
2731:
2721:
2715:
2693:
2687:
2685:
2684:
2682:
2658:
2652:
2636:
2630:
2628:
2602:
2596:
2590:
2584:
2578:
2572:
2566:
2560:
2554:
2548:
2542:
2536:
2530:
2524:
2518:
2512:
2506:
2500:
2493:
2487:
2477:
2468:
2465:
2459:
2449:
2440:
2434:
2410:
2404:
2392:
2386:
2380:
2374:
2368:
2362:
2352:
2346:
2340:
2334:
2326:
2320:
2314:
2308:
2302:
2296:
2286:
2280:
2277:
2271:
2265:
2259:
2256:
2250:
2236:
2230:
2227:Divisional Court
2220:
2214:
2204:
2198:
2188:
2182:
2176:
2170:
2163:
2157:
2151:
2145:
2135:
2129:
2123:
2117:
2110:
2104:
2090:
2079:
2069:
2063:
2060:
2054:
2052:
2044:
2038:
2018:
2012:
1998:
1989:
1986:
1977:
1970:
1961:
1957:
1951:
1943:
1937:
1935:
1914:
1908:
1893:
1887:
1885:
1877:
1868:
1866:
1837:
1831:
1825:
1819:
1812:
1803:
1785:
1779:
1773:
1767:
1753:
1732:
1726:
1712:
1322:questions of law
1231:Attorney-General
820:Attorney-General
720:Mandatory orders
600:equitable remedy
423:invalidating an
401:executive branch
389:equitable remedy
343:
336:
329:
207:Unreasonableness
99:Prerogative writ
51:
50:
5368:
5367:
5363:
5362:
5361:
5359:
5358:
5357:
5338:
5337:
5336:
5331:
5313:
5292:
5210:
5184:
5180:Women's Charter
5175:Matrimonial law
5161:
5081:
5064:
5054:
5031:
5012:
4979:
4944:
4931:
4893:
4877:Court of Appeal
4852:Judicial system
4845:Judicial branch
4840:
4819:
4776:
4771:
4736:
4714:
4691:
4671:
4621:Judicial Review
4580:
4575:
4573:Further reading
4547:
4524:
4500:
4465:
4363:Court of Appeal
4311:Re Onkar Shrian
4307:
4302:
4297:
4296:
4266:
4262:
4255:
4247:, p. 293,
4245:Clarendon Press
4237:
4233:
4225:
4221:
4214:
4190:
4183:
4178:
4174:
4169:
4165:
4160:
4156:
4151:
4147:
4121:
4117:
4112:
4108:
4103:
4099:
4091:
4087:
4082:
4078:
4072:Wayback Machine
4061:Wayback Machine
4050:Wayback Machine
4039:Wayback Machine
4025:
4021:
3999:Wayback Machine
3989:
3985:
3969:
3965:
3957:
3950:
3940:
3938:
3934:
3919:
3906:
3902:
3897:
3893:
3888:
3884:
3876:
3872:
3864:
3860:
3848:
3844:
3836:
3832:
3824:
3820:
3812:
3808:
3802:Wayback Machine
3791:Wayback Machine
3778:
3774:
3763:
3755:, p. 241,
3741:
3737:
3725:
3721:
3713:
3709:
3697:
3693:
3681:
3677:
3657:
3653:
3645:
3641:
3633:
3629:
3617:
3613:
3605:
3601:
3595:Wayback Machine
3582:
3578:
3566:
3562:
3554:
3550:
3542:
3538:
3529:
3525:
3512:
3508:
3503:
3496:
3491:
3487:
3472:
3468:
3448:
3444:
3439:
3435:
3427:
3423:
3418:
3414:
3409:
3405:
3400:
3396:
3388:
3384:
3379:
3375:
3370:
3366:
3360:Pang Cheng Suan
3337:
3333:
3328:
3324:
3319:
3315:
3310:
3306:
3286:
3282:
3270:
3266:
3258:
3254:
3242:
3238:
3233:
3229:
3224:
3220:
3215:
3211:
3206:
3202:
3186:
3179:
3171:
3167:
3153:
3149:
3144:
3140:
3134:Wayback Machine
3127:S 308/2011
3120:
3116:
3111:
3107:
3098:
3091:
3083:
3076:
3068:
3064:
3056:
3052:
3030:Eshugbayi Eleko
3012:Eshugbayi Eleko
3010:
3006:
2994:
2990:
2984:Wayback Machine
2968:
2964:
2950:
2946:
2937:
2933:
2908:
2904:
2895:
2891:
2864:
2853:
2847:Wayback Machine
2837:
2833:
2818:
2816:
2815:, December 2011
2797:
2789:
2765:Bryan A. Garner
2762:
2758:
2750:
2746:
2738:
2734:
2722:
2718:
2712:Wayback Machine
2694:
2690:
2680:
2678:
2659:
2655:
2637:
2633:
2603:
2599:
2593:Re Onkar Shrian
2591:
2587:
2579:
2575:
2567:
2563:
2555:
2551:
2543:
2539:
2531:
2527:
2519:
2515:
2507:
2503:
2494:
2490:
2478:
2471:
2466:
2462:
2450:
2443:
2432:
2424:, p. 544,
2422:Clarendon Press
2411:
2407:
2393:
2389:
2381:
2377:
2369:
2365:
2353:
2349:
2341:
2337:
2327:
2323:
2317:Ex parte Godden
2315:
2311:
2305:Ex parte Godden
2303:
2299:
2293:Court of Appeal
2287:
2283:
2278:
2274:
2266:
2262:
2257:
2253:
2237:
2233:
2221:
2217:
2205:
2201:
2189:
2185:
2177:
2173:
2164:
2160:
2152:
2148:
2136:
2132:
2124:
2120:
2111:
2107:
2091:
2082:
2070:
2066:
2061:
2057:
2045:
2041:
2029:, prohibition,
2019:
2015:
2009:Wayback Machine
1999:
1992:
1987:
1980:
1971:
1964:
1958:
1954:
1944:
1940:
1933:
1915:
1911:
1894:
1890:
1878:
1871:
1864:
1838:
1834:
1826:
1822:
1813:
1806:
1786:
1782:
1774:
1770:
1751:
1741:Clarendon Press
1733:
1729:
1723:Court of Appeal
1713:
1709:
1704:
1624:
1600:
1595:
1571:
1498:Benefits Agency
1478:custody officer
1377:
1330:
1255:
1226:
1061:Re Onkar Shrian
1057:
1012:withholding tax
988:withholding tax
984:Court of Appeal
963:
961:Quashing orders
873:
846:) to apply for
722:
628:
566:
530:Court of Appeal
515:judicial review
494:
489:
413:judicial review
347:
280:
230:
202:Proportionality
185:Natural justice
156:judicial review
89:Ministerial act
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
5366:
5356:
5355:
5350:
5333:
5332:
5330:
5329:
5324:
5318:
5315:
5314:
5312:
5311:
5306:
5300:
5298:
5294:
5293:
5291:
5290:
5285:
5280:
5274:
5269:
5264:
5259:
5254:
5249:
5244:
5239:
5234:
5229:
5224:
5218:
5216:
5212:
5211:
5209:
5208:
5203:
5198:
5192:
5190:
5186:
5185:
5183:
5182:
5177:
5171:
5169:
5163:
5162:
5160:
5159:
5154:
5149:
5144:
5139:
5134:
5133:
5132:
5122:
5120:Kidnapping Act
5117:
5112:
5107:
5102:
5097:
5091:
5089:
5083:
5082:
5080:
5079:
5074:
5068:
5066:
5060:
5059:
5056:
5055:
5053:
5052:
5047:
5041:
5039:
5033:
5032:
5030:
5029:
5020:
5018:
5014:
5013:
5011:
5010:
5005:
5000:
4995:
4989:
4987:
4981:
4980:
4978:
4977:
4972:
4967:
4961:
4959:
4952:
4946:
4945:
4938:
4936:
4933:
4932:
4930:
4929:
4924:
4919:
4914:
4909:
4903:
4901:
4895:
4894:
4892:
4891:
4886:
4885:
4884:
4879:
4869:
4864:
4859:
4854:
4848:
4846:
4842:
4841:
4839:
4838:
4833:
4827:
4825:
4821:
4820:
4818:
4817:
4812:
4810:Prime Minister
4807:
4802:
4797:
4791:
4789:
4782:
4778:
4777:
4770:
4769:
4762:
4755:
4747:
4741:
4740:
4734:
4718:
4712:
4695:
4689:
4670:
4667:
4666:
4665:
4647:
4637:
4627:(4): 225–230,
4616:
4596:
4579:
4576:
4574:
4571:
4570:
4569:
4551:
4545:
4528:
4522:
4499:
4496:
4495:
4494:
4487:
4480:
4473:
4464:
4461:
4460:
4459:
4453:
4447:
4437:
4427:
4417:
4411:
4401:
4389:
4381:
4370:
4365:(Singapore) ("
4356:
4346:
4332:
4329:House of Lords
4318:
4306:
4303:
4301:
4298:
4295:
4294:
4260:
4253:
4231:
4219:
4212:
4181:
4172:
4163:
4154:
4145:
4141:Fong Thin Choo
4133:Fong Thin Choo
4115:
4113:GPA, s. 27(2).
4106:
4097:
4085:
4076:
4019:
3983:
3963:
3948:
3900:
3891:
3882:
3870:
3858:
3842:
3830:
3818:
3806:
3772:
3761:
3743:Itzhak Zamir;
3735:
3719:
3707:
3691:
3675:
3651:
3639:
3637:, pp. 456–458.
3635:Ex parte Salem
3627:
3611:
3599:
3576:
3560:
3548:
3536:
3523:
3506:
3494:
3485:
3481:Lord Templeman
3466:
3442:
3433:
3431:, pp. 111–112.
3421:
3412:
3403:
3394:
3382:
3373:
3364:
3331:
3322:
3313:
3304:
3280:
3264:
3252:
3236:
3227:
3218:
3209:
3200:
3198:, pp. 642–643.
3177:
3173:Chee Siok Chin
3165:
3147:
3145:GPA, s. 19(1).
3138:
3114:
3112:GPA, s. 19(3).
3105:
3089:
3074:
3062:
3050:
3036:were cited in
3004:
2988:
2962:
2944:
2931:
2902:
2889:
2851:
2831:
2787:
2756:
2744:
2732:
2716:
2688:
2653:
2631:
2620:, p. 24,
2597:
2585:
2573:
2561:
2549:
2537:
2525:
2513:
2501:
2488:
2469:
2460:
2441:
2430:
2405:
2387:
2383:Fong Thin Choo
2375:
2371:Fong Thin Choo
2363:
2355:Fong Thin Choo
2347:
2343:Fong Thin Choo
2335:
2321:
2309:
2297:
2281:
2272:
2260:
2251:
2241:1 W.L.R. 450,
2231:
2215:
2199:
2183:
2171:
2158:
2146:
2130:
2118:
2105:
2080:
2064:
2055:
2039:
2013:
1990:
1978:
1962:
1952:
1938:
1931:
1909:
1888:
1869:
1862:
1832:
1820:
1804:
1800:House of Lords
1780:
1768:
1749:
1743:, p. 40,
1727:
1706:
1705:
1703:
1700:
1670:
1669:
1666:
1663:
1641:liquidated sum
1623:
1620:
1599:
1596:
1594:
1591:
1570:
1567:
1438:National Front
1414:National Front
1396:Havil Hall in
1376:
1373:
1329:
1326:
1254:
1251:
1225:
1222:
1056:
1053:
992:quashing order
962:
959:
872:
869:
856:House of Lords
721:
718:
695:
694:
687:
680:
677:
627:
624:
623:
622:
619:
616:
613:
610:
607:
565:
562:
493:
490:
488:
485:
349:
348:
346:
345:
338:
331:
323:
320:
319:
318:
317:
309:
308:
307:Related topics
304:
303:
302:
301:
296:
291:
283:
282:
276:
275:
274:
273:
268:
267:
266:
259:United Kingdom
256:
251:
246:
241:
233:
232:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
216:
204:
199:
198:
197:
192:
187:
177:
172:
167:
159:
158:
151:
150:
149:
148:
141:
136:
135:
134:
127:
122:
115:
108:
96:
91:
86:
84:Justiciability
81:
76:
71:
63:
62:
58:
57:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
5365:
5354:
5351:
5349:
5346:
5345:
5343:
5328:
5325:
5323:
5320:
5319:
5316:
5310:
5307:
5305:
5302:
5301:
5299:
5295:
5289:
5286:
5284:
5281:
5278:
5275:
5273:
5270:
5268:
5265:
5263:
5260:
5258:
5255:
5253:
5250:
5248:
5245:
5243:
5240:
5238:
5235:
5233:
5230:
5228:
5225:
5223:
5220:
5219:
5217:
5213:
5207:
5204:
5202:
5201:Charities Act
5199:
5197:
5194:
5193:
5191:
5189:Religious law
5187:
5181:
5178:
5176:
5173:
5172:
5170:
5168:
5164:
5158:
5157:Vandalism Act
5155:
5153:
5150:
5148:
5145:
5143:
5140:
5138:
5135:
5131:
5128:
5127:
5126:
5123:
5121:
5118:
5116:
5113:
5111:
5108:
5106:
5103:
5101:
5098:
5096:
5093:
5092:
5090:
5088:
5084:
5078:
5075:
5073:
5070:
5069:
5067:
5061:
5051:
5048:
5046:
5043:
5042:
5040:
5038:
5034:
5028:
5026:
5022:
5021:
5019:
5017:Irrationality
5015:
5009:
5006:
5004:
5001:
4999:
4996:
4994:
4991:
4990:
4988:
4986:
4982:
4976:
4973:
4971:
4968:
4966:
4963:
4962:
4960:
4956:
4953:
4951:
4947:
4942:
4928:
4925:
4923:
4920:
4918:
4915:
4913:
4910:
4908:
4905:
4904:
4902:
4900:
4896:
4890:
4887:
4883:
4880:
4878:
4875:
4874:
4873:
4872:Supreme Court
4870:
4868:
4865:
4863:
4860:
4858:
4855:
4853:
4850:
4849:
4847:
4843:
4837:
4834:
4832:
4829:
4828:
4826:
4822:
4816:
4813:
4811:
4808:
4806:
4803:
4801:
4798:
4796:
4793:
4792:
4790:
4786:
4783:
4779:
4775:
4768:
4763:
4761:
4756:
4754:
4749:
4748:
4745:
4737:
4731:
4727:
4723:
4719:
4715:
4709:
4705:
4701:
4696:
4692:
4686:
4682:
4678:
4673:
4672:
4661:
4657:
4653:
4648:
4643:
4638:
4634:
4630:
4626:
4622:
4617:
4612:
4608:
4607:
4602:
4597:
4592:
4591:
4586:
4582:
4581:
4565:
4561:
4557:
4552:
4548:
4542:
4538:
4535:, Singapore:
4534:
4529:
4525:
4519:
4515:
4510:
4509:
4502:
4501:
4492:
4488:
4485:
4481:
4478:
4474:
4471:
4467:
4466:
4457:
4454:
4451:
4448:
4445:
4441:
4438:
4435:
4431:
4428:
4425:
4421:
4418:
4415:
4412:
4409:
4405:
4402:
4399:
4395:
4394:
4390:
4387:
4386:
4382:
4379:
4376:
4375:
4371:
4368:
4364:
4360:
4357:
4354:
4350:
4347:
4344:
4340:
4336:
4333:
4330:
4327:, A.C. 617,
4326:
4322:
4319:
4316:
4312:
4309:
4308:
4291:
4287:
4283:
4279:
4275:
4271:
4270:
4264:
4256:
4250:
4246:
4242:
4235:
4228:
4223:
4215:
4209:
4205:
4201:
4195:
4194:
4188:
4186:
4176:
4167:
4158:
4149:
4142:
4138:
4134:
4130:
4125:
4119:
4110:
4101:
4094:
4089:
4080:
4073:
4069:
4066:
4062:
4058:
4055:
4051:
4047:
4044:
4040:
4036:
4033:
4029:
4023:
4014:
4010:
4006:
4000:
3996:
3993:
3987:
3980:
3976:
3972:
3967:
3960:
3955:
3953:
3933:
3929:
3925:
3918:
3914:
3909:
3904:
3895:
3886:
3879:
3874:
3867:
3862:
3855:
3851:
3846:
3839:
3834:
3827:
3822:
3815:
3810:
3803:
3799:
3796:
3792:
3788:
3785:
3781:
3776:
3769:
3764:
3758:
3754:
3750:
3746:
3739:
3732:
3728:
3723:
3716:
3711:
3704:
3700:
3695:
3688:
3684:
3679:
3672:
3668:
3664:
3660:
3655:
3648:
3643:
3636:
3631:
3624:
3620:
3615:
3608:
3603:
3596:
3592:
3589:
3585:
3580:
3573:
3569:
3564:
3557:
3552:
3545:
3540:
3533:
3527:
3520:
3516:
3510:
3501:
3499:
3489:
3482:
3479:
3475:
3470:
3463:
3459:
3455:
3451:
3446:
3437:
3430:
3425:
3416:
3407:
3398:
3391:
3386:
3377:
3368:
3361:
3358:
3357:distinguished
3354:
3350:
3349:
3344:
3340:
3335:
3326:
3317:
3308:
3301:
3297:
3293:
3289:
3284:
3277:
3273:
3268:
3261:
3256:
3249:
3245:
3240:
3231:
3222:
3213:
3204:
3197:
3193:
3189:
3184:
3182:
3174:
3169:
3162:
3158:
3157:
3151:
3142:
3135:
3131:
3128:
3124:
3121:Probably the
3118:
3109:
3102:
3096:
3094:
3086:
3081:
3079:
3071:
3066:
3059:
3054:
3047:
3043:
3039:
3035:
3031:
3027:
3023:
3022:
3017:
3013:
3008:
3001:
2997:
2992:
2985:
2981:
2978:
2974:
2971:
2966:
2957:
2948:
2941:
2935:
2926:
2922:
2921:
2916:
2912:
2906:
2899:
2893:
2886:
2883:
2879:
2875:
2871:
2867:
2866:Chng Suan Tze
2862:
2860:
2858:
2856:
2848:
2844:
2841:
2835:
2827:
2814:
2810:
2809:
2804:
2802:
2794:
2790:
2784:
2780:
2776:
2772:
2771:
2766:
2760:
2753:
2752:Chng Suan Tze
2748:
2741:
2740:Chng Suan Tze
2736:
2729:
2725:
2720:
2713:
2709:
2706:
2702:
2699:
2698:
2692:
2676:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2657:
2649:
2648:Habeas corpus
2646:(Malaysia): "
2645:
2641:
2635:
2627:
2623:
2619:
2615:
2611:
2606:
2601:
2594:
2589:
2582:
2577:
2570:
2565:
2558:
2553:
2546:
2541:
2534:
2529:
2522:
2517:
2510:
2505:
2498:
2492:
2485:
2481:
2476:
2474:
2464:
2457:
2453:
2448:
2446:
2438:
2433:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2409:
2402:
2398:
2397:
2391:
2384:
2379:
2372:
2367:
2360:
2356:
2351:
2344:
2339:
2332:
2331:
2325:
2318:
2313:
2306:
2301:
2294:
2290:
2285:
2276:
2269:
2264:
2255:
2248:
2247:Queen's Bench
2244:
2240:
2235:
2228:
2224:
2219:
2212:
2208:
2203:
2196:
2192:
2187:
2180:
2175:
2168:
2162:
2155:
2150:
2143:
2139:
2134:
2127:
2122:
2115:
2109:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2089:
2087:
2085:
2077:
2073:
2068:
2059:
2050:
2043:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2023:habeas corpus
2017:
2010:
2006:
2003:
1997:
1995:
1985:
1983:
1975:
1969:
1967:
1956:
1949:
1942:
1934:
1928:
1924:
1921:, Singapore:
1920:
1913:
1906:
1903: at 599,
1902:
1898:
1892:
1883:
1876:
1874:
1865:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1836:
1829:
1824:
1817:
1811:
1809:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1784:
1777:
1772:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1752:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1731:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1711:
1707:
1699:
1697:
1692:
1690:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1676:
1667:
1664:
1661:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1653:
1648:
1646:
1642:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1619:
1617:
1611:
1609:
1605:
1590:
1586:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1566:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1550:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1525:
1521:
1519:
1515:
1510:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1482:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1466:Dorset Police
1463:
1457:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1383:
1372:
1370:
1367:
1362:
1358:
1353:
1348:
1345:
1339:
1336:
1325:
1323:
1318:
1315:
1311:
1304:
1302:
1301:
1295:
1289:
1287:
1282:
1280:
1274:
1272:
1267:
1263:
1262:
1250:
1248:
1244:
1239:
1234:
1232:
1221:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1210:habeas corpus
1207:
1202:
1200:
1193:
1188:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1177:Singapore law
1173:
1172:Chng Suan Sze
1169:
1165:
1159:
1157:
1147:
1142:
1139:
1134:
1132:
1128:
1127:habeas corpus
1123:
1120:
1119:
1114:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1100:habeas corpus
1096:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1081:
1079:
1075:
1069:
1064:
1062:
1052:
1050:
1044:
1039:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
993:
989:
985:
981:
976:
972:
970:
969:
958:
954:
951:
945:
943:
939:
935:
934:
928:
923:
920:
913:
911:
907:
903:
899:
898:
892:
889:
885:
881:
877:
868:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
832:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
802:
798:
797:
792:
788:
784:
779:
775:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
739:
734:
732:
726:
717:
715:
710:
706:
705:
699:
692:
691:habeas corpus
688:
685:
681:
678:
675:
671:
670:
669:
664:
661:
658:
653:
649:
645:
644:British Crown
641:
640:habeas corpus
637:
633:
620:
617:
614:
611:
608:
605:
604:
603:
601:
597:
593:
592:
591:habeas corpus
587:
586:
581:
577:
576:
571:
561:
558:
556:
552:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
518:
516:
512:
507:
504:by providing
503:
499:
484:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
453:
449:
447:
443:
437:
435:
434:
428:
427:
420:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:habeas corpus
376:
375:
370:
366:
365:
360:
356:
344:
339:
337:
332:
330:
325:
324:
322:
321:
316:
313:
312:
311:
310:
306:
305:
300:
297:
295:
292:
290:
287:
286:
285:
284:
278:
277:
272:
271:United States
269:
265:
262:
261:
260:
257:
255:
252:
250:
247:
245:
242:
240:
237:
236:
235:
234:
228:
227:
220:
217:
215:
214:
210:
209:
208:
205:
203:
200:
196:
193:
191:
188:
186:
183:
182:
181:
178:
176:
173:
171:
168:
166:
163:
162:
161:
160:
157:
153:
152:
147:
146:
142:
140:
137:
133:
132:
128:
126:
123:
121:
120:
116:
114:
113:
112:Habeas corpus
109:
107:
106:
102:
101:
100:
97:
95:
94:Ouster clause
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
75:
72:
70:
67:
66:
65:
64:
60:
59:
56:
53:
52:
46:
42:
38:
34:
29:
25:
22:
5147:Sedition Act
5087:Criminal law
5024:
4969:
4912:Human rights
4899:Constitution
4889:State Courts
4725:
4699:
4676:
4662:(2): 323–334
4659:
4655:
4641:
4624:
4620:
4610:
4604:
4588:
4585:Bingham, T H
4563:
4559:
4532:
4507:
4455:
4449:
4443:
4439:
4429:
4419:
4413:
4407:
4403:
4397:
4391:
4383:
4372:
4367:Lim Chor Pee
4366:
4358:
4353:Lim Chor Pee
4352:
4348:
4342:
4334:
4320:
4317:(Singapore).
4310:
4285:
4277:
4267:
4263:
4240:
4234:
4226:
4222:
4199:
4191:
4175:
4166:
4157:
4148:
4140:
4136:
4132:
4128:
4123:
4118:
4109:
4100:
4093:Yip Kok Seng
4092:
4088:
4079:
4022:
4013:the original
4008:
3986:
3974:
3971:Yip Kok Seng
3970:
3966:
3958:
3939:, retrieved
3932:the original
3923:
3907:
3903:
3894:
3885:
3877:
3873:
3866:Tan Eng Hong
3865:
3861:
3845:
3837:
3833:
3826:Karaha Bodas
3825:
3821:
3814:Karaha Bodas
3813:
3809:
3775:
3768:Karaha Bodas
3767:
3748:
3738:
3731:Karaha Bodas
3730:
3726:
3722:
3714:
3710:
3703:Karaha Bodas
3702:
3698:
3694:
3682:
3678:
3670:
3666:
3662:
3659:Karaha Bodas
3658:
3654:
3646:
3642:
3634:
3630:
3618:
3614:
3606:
3602:
3579:
3567:
3563:
3555:
3551:
3543:
3539:
3531:
3526:
3518:
3514:
3509:
3488:
3477:
3473:
3469:
3453:
3449:
3445:
3436:
3428:
3424:
3415:
3406:
3397:
3389:
3385:
3376:
3367:
3359:
3352:
3346:
3342:
3338:
3334:
3325:
3316:
3307:
3295:
3291:
3287:
3283:
3275:
3271:
3267:
3259:
3255:
3243:
3239:
3230:
3221:
3212:
3203:
3195:
3191:
3187:
3172:
3168:
3154:
3150:
3141:
3117:
3108:
3084:
3070:Onkar Shrian
3069:
3065:
3057:
3053:
3041:
3037:
3033:
3029:
3019:
3011:
3007:
2995:
2991:
2977:the original
2969:
2965:
2955:
2947:
2934:
2924:
2918:
2914:
2911:Andrew Phang
2905:
2892:
2885:Lord Scarman
2881:
2877:
2869:
2865:
2834:
2824:
2817:, retrieved
2807:
2800:
2792:
2769:
2759:
2751:
2747:
2739:
2735:
2719:
2705:the original
2695:
2691:
2679:, retrieved
2670:
2666:
2656:
2647:
2639:
2634:
2613:
2610:Lord Simonds
2605:Onkar Shrian
2604:
2600:
2592:
2588:
2580:
2576:
2568:
2564:
2556:
2552:
2544:
2540:
2532:
2528:
2520:
2516:
2508:
2504:
2491:
2483:
2479:
2463:
2455:
2451:
2436:
2417:
2408:
2400:
2394:
2390:
2382:
2378:
2370:
2366:
2358:
2354:
2350:
2342:
2338:
2328:
2324:
2316:
2312:
2304:
2300:
2291:2 Q.B. 662,
2288:
2284:
2275:
2268:Lim Chor Pee
2267:
2263:
2254:
2238:
2234:
2222:
2218:
2206:
2202:
2195:Lim Chor Pee
2194:
2190:
2186:
2179:Lim Chor Pee
2178:
2174:
2161:
2154:Lim Chor Pee
2153:
2149:
2142:Lim Chor Pee
2141:
2137:
2133:
2125:
2121:
2108:
2100:
2096:
2092:
2071:
2067:
2058:
2048:
2042:
2034:
2031:quo warranto
2030:
2026:
2022:
2016:
1955:
1941:
1918:
1912:
1896:
1891:
1881:
1845:
1835:
1828:Ng Chye Huey
1827:
1823:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1776:Ng Chye Huey
1775:
1771:
1764:Ng Chye Huey
1763:
1755:
1736:
1730:
1725:(Singapore).
1714:
1710:
1693:
1688:
1673:
1671:
1649:
1625:
1615:
1612:
1607:
1601:
1587:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1572:
1558:section 377A
1553:
1551:
1545:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1527:
1523:
1517:
1513:
1511:
1485:
1483:
1461:
1458:
1433:
1427:
1412:to permit a
1378:
1375:Declarations
1365:
1361:legal burden
1351:
1349:
1343:
1340:
1334:
1331:
1319:
1313:
1306:
1298:
1293:
1291:
1285:
1283:
1278:
1275:
1264:originating
1259:
1256:
1242:
1237:
1235:
1227:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1206:Lord Scarman
1203:
1195:
1190:
1180:
1171:
1160:
1152:
1137:
1136:
1126:
1124:
1116:
1099:
1084:
1082:
1074:Article 9(2)
1071:
1066:
1060:
1058:
1048:
1046:
1041:
1035:
1028:Lord Denning
1023:
1019:
1017:
999:
997:
966:
964:
956:
949:
947:
941:
938:William Wade
931:
929:
925:
918:
915:
895:
893:
879:
878:
874:
863:
859:
851:
847:
844:locus standi
843:
836:Lim Chor Pee
835:
833:
827:
807:
806:
794:
767:
763:
759:
755:
747:
743:
741:
736:
730:
727:
723:
714:quo warranto
713:
709:quo warranto
708:
704:quo warranto
702:
700:
697:
690:
683:
673:
666:
662:
639:
635:
631:
629:
598:, a form of
594:) – and the
589:
583:
573:
567:
559:
551:Ng Chye Huey
550:
545:
540:rather than
533:
519:
511:Constitution
495:
487:Introduction
464:
454:
450:
442:Article 9(2)
438:
431:
424:
421:
387:, a form of
383:) – and the
378:
372:
362:
354:
352:
254:South Africa
211:
154:Grounds for
143:
131:Quo warranto
129:
117:
110:
103:
24:
4498:Other works
4493:) ("SCJA").
4463:Legislation
3913:Thio Li-ann
3766:, cited in
3588:1984, c. 60
2942:) ("AELA").
2435:, cited in
1901:97 E.R. 587
1897:R. v. Cowle
1852:, pp.
1818:) ("SCJA").
1754:, cited in
1689:ultra vires
1660:maliciously
1645:restitution
1608:ultra vires
1598:Injunctions
1494:Home Office
1418:declaration
1386:private law
1352:prima facie
1300:prima facie
968:ultra vires
652:prerogative
596:declaration
580:prohibition
496:The aim of
465:ultra vires
461:private law
457:injunctions
433:prima facie
426:ultra vires
385:declaration
369:prohibition
190:Due process
145:Ultra vires
125:Prohibition
39:, in which
5342:Categories
5279:(Repealed)
5167:Family law
5125:Penal Code
5065:resolution
5025:Wednesbury
4985:Illegality
4882:High Court
4836:Parliament
4800:Government
4722:Lord Woolf
4679:, London:
4642:Public Law
4613:(1): 64–82
4590:Public Law
4537:LexisNexis
4486:) ("SCA").
4479:) ("ROC").
4472:) ("GPA").
4315:High Court
4300:References
4202:, London:
4032:1981 c. 54
3992:S 218/2011
3850:Penal Code
3745:Lord Woolf
3462:High Court
3353:UDL Marine
3343:Chai Chwan
3103:) ("GPA").
3034:Liversidge
2811:, Oxford:
2808:OED Online
2777:, p.
2644:High Court
2521:ACC v. CIT
2414:H W R Wade
2243:High Court
2035:certiorari
1960:Schedule."
1923:LexisNexis
1760:High Court
1739:, Oxford:
1604:injunction
1562:Penal Code
1406:High Court
1382:public law
1185:Lord Atkin
1104:Government
1024:certiorari
950:certiorari
919:certiorari
793:granted a
791:High Court
748:certiorari
684:certiorari
632:certiorari
585:certiorari
538:common law
522:High Court
469:common law
409:High Court
405:Government
374:certiorari
213:Wednesbury
139:Rulemaking
105:Certiorari
45:High Court
19:See also:
5297:Procedure
4907:Elections
4831:President
4795:President
4566:: 324–350
4446:(C.A.)").
4410:(C.A.)").
4400:(H.C.)").
4369:(C.A.)").
4355:(H.C.)").
3941:8 January
3804:), r. 13.
3609:, p. 426.
3278:(H.C.)").
3087:, p. 111.
2826:received.
2819:5 January
2799:"return,
2681:14 August
2638:See also
2626:494652904
2486:(C.A.)").
2458:(C.A.)").
2403:(H.C.)").
2319:, p. 670.
2307:, p. 663.
2197:(C.A.)").
2144:(H.C.)").
1946:Act (
1895:See also
1442:far right
1398:Southwark
1108:President
393:Singapore
249:Singapore
239:Australia
4970:Remedies
4644:: 91–110
4068:Archived
4057:Archived
4046:Archived
4035:Archived
3995:Archived
3798:Archived
3787:Archived
3591:Archived
3130:Archived
2980:Archived
2898:ellipsis
2843:Archived
2708:Archived
2675:archived
2416:(1977),
2027:mandamus
2005:Archived
1682:and the
1632:contract
1546:of right
1344:ex parte
1335:ex parte
1314:ex parte
1294:ex parte
1261:ex parte
1038:(1976):
864:mandamus
860:mandamus
848:mandamus
840:standing
828:mandamus
796:mandamus
764:mandamus
760:mandamus
756:mandamus
674:mandamus
636:mandamus
575:mandamus
564:Remedies
506:remedies
477:contract
364:mandamus
357:are the
294:Mongolia
264:Scotland
119:Mandamus
4958:General
4805:Cabinet
4593:: 64–75
4343:Khawaja
4001:). See
3699:Gouriet
3663:Salijah
3597:) (UK).
3556:Webster
3474:Khawaja
3450:Khawaja
3429:Khawaja
3085:Khawaja
3038:Khawaja
3016:dissent
2878:Khawaja
1628:damages
1622:Damages
1560:of the
1530:Gouriet
1506:refugee
1404:of the
1366:Khawaja
1266:summons
1218:Khawaja
1095:Marxist
1076:of the
542:statute
473:damages
444:of the
403:of the
299:Ukraine
4732:
4710:
4687:
4543:
4520:
4251:
4210:
4065:Pt. 54
3852: (
3759:
2785:
2726: (
2624:
2428:
1929:
1860:
1747:
1490:asylum
1164:equity
1118:obiter
1030:, the
785:along
686:); and
553:– the
244:Canada
5215:Other
4669:Books
4432:
4422:
4337:
4331:(UK).
4323:
4305:Cases
4288:
4280:
4272:
4043:s. 31
3977:
3935:(PDF)
3928:ASEAN
3920:(PDF)
3685:
3621:
3607:Vince
3570:
3456:
3298:
3246:
3159:
3044:
3024:
2998:
2872:
2209:
2074:
1802:(UK).
1794:
1717:
1702:Notes
1310:serve
1271:costs
1034:, in
922:duty.
648:writs
546:still
483:law.
391:. In
289:China
5045:Bias
4730:ISBN
4708:ISBN
4685:ISBN
4541:ISBN
4518:ISBN
4249:ISBN
4208:ISBN
3943:2011
3757:ISBN
3727:Re S
3032:and
2821:2012
2783:ISBN
2779:1319
2775:West
2683:2019
2651:..."
2622:OCLC
2426:ISBN
2033:and
1927:ISBN
1858:ISBN
1745:ISBN
1636:tort
1538:Re S
1440:, a
1312:the
1199:bail
906:duty
481:tort
411:for
353:The
4629:doi
4444:ACC
4345:").
4063:),
4041:),
3478:per
2917:",
2882:per
2880:")
2545:ACC
2533:ACC
2509:ACC
2484:ACC
1672:In
1634:or
1602:An
1552:In
1175:of
1083:In
940:'s
742:In
532:in
479:or
5344::
4706:,
4658:,
4654:,
4623:,
4609:,
4603:,
4564:25
4562:,
4558:,
4516:,
4184:^
4030:,
4007:,
3951:^
3926:,
3922:,
3915:,
3856:).
3497:^
3180:^
3136:).
3092:^
3077:^
2925:28
2923:,
2854:^
2849:).
2823:,
2805:,
2803:."
2796:;
2791:,
2781:,
2730:).
2671:25
2669:,
2665:,
2499:).
2472:^
2444:^
2083:^
2025:,
1993:^
1981:^
1965:^
1872:^
1856:,
1844:,
1807:^
1216:("
1201:.
1187::
1051:.
693:).
676:);
634:,
557:.
395:,
4766:e
4759:t
4752:v
4739:.
4717:.
4694:.
4664:.
4660:2
4646:.
4636:.
4631::
4625:4
4615:.
4611:2
4595:.
4568:.
4550:.
4527:.
4258:.
4217:.
4074:.
4017:.
3946:.
3782:(
3586:(
3483:.
2960:.
2929:.
2887:.
2829:.
2801:n
2686:.
2629:.
2245:(
2169:.
2116:.
2053:.
1936:.
1886:.
1867:.
1452:(
1424:.
994:.
842:(
803:.
342:e
335:t
328:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.