Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law

546:

the purported determination and instead focused on whether there was in fact a valid determination. He pointed out that "if you seek to show that a determination is a nullity you are not questioning the purported determination – you are maintaining that it does not exist as a determination". He then held it was a well-established principle that a provision ousting the ordinary jurisdiction of the court must be construed strictly – if such a provision is reasonably capable of having two meanings, the meaning which preserves the ordinary jurisdiction of the court should be taken. If Parliament had intended to introduce a new kind of ouster clause that would protect such nullities from being questioned, better drafting of the provision would be required.

1181:. Moreover, the judicial process, unlike executive decision-making, was not conducive to a swift response to national security threats. The courts, unlike the executive, lacked access to inadmissible evidence relevant to security matters, and judges did not possess the skill and knowledge of the security experts employed by the executive. Furthermore, the objective test did not find favour with the Government because it had been imported from the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions. Since the objective test had been formulated by foreign judges without consideration of Singapore's local conditions, the Government was averse to the idea of allowing the objective test to shape the development of 3593: 1225:

law before, on or after that date of any other country in the Commonwealth relating to judicial review shall apply". In addition, section 8B(1) was made subject to section 8B(2), which seeks to oust judicial review in any court of any act done or decision made by the President or the Minister under the ISA, save where there is any question which relates to compliance with any procedural requirement of the ISA governing such acts or decisions. Jayakumar said in Parliament that section 8B(2) sought not only to prevent the courts from questioning the soundness of the subjective test, but also to anticipate any legal challenges on the basis that the subjective test laid down in

1189: 22: 595: 778: 643:(1983) and opined that "the decision in rendered obsolete the distinction between errors of law on the face of the record and other errors of law by extending the doctrine of ultra vires." Thus, an ouster clause is ineffective when the decision-maker has acted unlawfully, whether the unlawfulness is jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional in nature. This is because "Parliament had only conferred the decision-making power on the basis that it was to be exercised on the correct legal basis: a misdirection in law in making the decision therefore rendered the decision ultra vires". 858: 1125:(1988), the respondents submitted that the President's discretion under section 8(1) was subjective, and so was not open to review by the courts. The appellants argued that the discretion was objective, and thus a court of law could review the grounds on which the discretion had been exercised. The Court held that an objective test applied to the subjectively worded powers in sections 8 and 10, and hence the exercise of these powers was normally challengeable on the 690:, it appears that there may be instances where the courts will still be bound by the jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional error of law divide. Cane has noted that there are three views. The first is that the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law is still relevant, while the second is that all errors of law go to jurisdiction. The third view takes a middle ground that allows for certain exceptions to the approach in the second view. 1057:

case the view might be taken that a court should not query how the power has been exercised. Examples of subjectively worded powers include powers that are stated to be exercisable "if the Minister so directs" or "as the Minister thinks fit". However, as with ouster clauses, courts have traditionally displayed resistance to such provisions. In practice, they are subject to the normal grounds of judicial review set forth in the UK case

1273:

ISA and completely unrelated to national security. Notably, the Court did not decide whether section 8B(2) of the ISA precludes it from reviewing a detention order shown to have been made for purposes other than national security, or whether the 1989 amendments to the ISA are outside the scope of the legislative power conferred on Parliament by the amended Article 149 of the Constitution.

801:, Lord Dyson then qualified his statement by emphasising that "the scope of judicial review should be no more (as well as no less) than is proportionate and necessary for the maintaining of the rule of law". On the facts of the case, he found it was neither proportionate nor necessary for the maintenance of the rule of law to require unrestricted judicial review. By enacting the 378:, or by wording powers conferred by Acts on decision-makers subjectively. Finality clauses are generally viewed restrictively by courts in the United Kingdom. The courts there have taken the view that such clauses are, subject to some exceptions, not effective in denying or restricting the extent to which the courts are able to exercise 992:, explained that upholding partial ouster clauses promoted the certainty of the executive's actions. It would not be in the public interest if applicants could challenge decisions after the time limit for doing so had expired, as this would delay actions taken by the executive. As Lord Justice of Appeal Michael Mann put it in 1220:

1989, it was to be determined in accordance with any law enacted by Parliament for this purpose, and Article 93 of the Constitution could not be relied upon to invalidate such a law. Pursuant to Article 149(3), Parliament then inserted new sections into the ISA. In particular, section 8B(1) confirmed the judgment in

1028:

evidence that the land is needed for the purpose specified therein". The Court said: "When the Government declares that a certain purpose is a public purpose it must be presumed that the Government is in possession of facts which induce the Government to declare that the purpose is a public purpose". However, in

1112:. Section 10 of the Act states that the Minister can direct that a detention order be suspended subject to conditions "as the Minister sees fit", and can also revoke such a direction "if he is satisfied" that the detainee failed to observe any condition or if it is necessary in the public interest to do so. 1224:

by declaring that "the law governing the judicial review of any decision made or act done in pursuance of any power conferred upon the President or the Minister by the provisions of this Act shall be the same as was applicable and declared in Singapore on the 13th day of July 1971; and no part of the

1176:

was taking this step because it was of the view that the courts' application of an objective test would amount to judicial usurpation of the executive's functions in matters pertaining to national security, which the judiciary is ill-equipped to deal with. Its stance was that the objective test would

1045:

If the President is satisfied with respect to any person that, with a view to preventing that person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Singapore or any part thereof or to the maintenance of public order or essential services therein, it is necessary to do so, the Minister shall

1027:

more of his land that was required for public purposes pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court held that the argument had to be rejected in the light of section 5(3) of the Act, which provided that the President's declaration that land was needed for a public purpose "shall be conclusive

1018:

Provisions in statutes declaring that certain decisions by public authorities shall be conclusive evidence of some facts have been found by the Singapore courts to be valid, and therefore have the effect of preventing applicants from challenging most – but not all – of such decisions by way

943:

which vests the judicial power of Singapore in the courts. Chief Justice Chan stated that if this proposition was answered in the affirmative, it would follow that the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts cannot be ousted, and there would thus be no need for Singapore courts to draw the distinction

549:

In his judgment, Lord Reid also took the opportunity to deal with the issue of jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law. While recognising the traditional understanding that jurisdictional errors of law are of no effect, his Lordship also stated that there are many cases where although the

952:

Unlike a total ouster or finality clause which seeks to preclude judicial review entirely, a partial ouster or time limit clause specifies a restricted period of time after which no remedy will be available. Such clauses are generally effective, unless the public authority has acted in bad faith, in

759:

The views expressed by Lord Browne-Wilkinson have been questioned by Cane. As regards the first reason, he has argued that the distinction between domestic law and general law is problematic. Such institutions may actually operate under a statutory framework which can result in a mixed issue of both

545:

differentiated between the arguments put forth by the parties. He held that while the respondents had argued that the provision clearly denied the court the ability to question the determination made by the Foreign Compensation Commission, the question at hand did not even involve the questioning of

1896:

The corresponding provision in the 2004 Edition of the statute is section 47, which states: "(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, an award shall be final and conclusive. (2) No award or decision or order of a Court or the President or a referee shall be challenged, appealed against, reviewed,

1300:

that the notion of a subjective or unfettered discretion – that is, power without legal limits – is contrary to the rule of law, which demands that courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power. Since Parliament did not undermine this principle when it legislatively

1281:

Due to the 1989 amendments to the Constitution and the ISA, the exercise of the subjectively worded powers in the ISA is not judicially reviewable by the courts, except when there has been some non-compliance with the procedures set out in the Act. On the other hand, the objective test laid down in

1219:

The amendments to the Constitution paved the way for intended amendments to the ISA. The new Article 149(3) stated that if the issue of the validity of any act done or decision made by the President or the Minister for Home Affairs arose in any court proceedings commenced before or after 27 January

809:

to hear appeals from lower tribunals, thus avoiding the ordinary courts from being overwhelmed by judicial review applications. As the system of tribunals provided ample opportunity for the correction of errors of law, this substantive policy reason precluded the need for all decisions of the Upper

755:

that Parliament does not intend such bodies to be the final arbiters of questions of law. This can be contrasted with courts of law in respect of which such a presumption is not present. Instead, the presumption is that "where Parliament had provided that the decision of an inferior court was final

666:

is that it showed that a material error of law renders a decision a 'nullity' so that the decision is in principle judicially reviewable". He went on to state that "as a matter of principle, there is no justification for drawing the line at jurisdictional error". In his opinion, any restrictions on

470:

is an attempt by the legislature to prevent an act or decision by a public authority from being challenged before the courts. Such clauses thus serve as a signal to decision-makers that they may operate without fear of intervention by the courts at a later stage. One common kind of ouster clause is

1363:

grounds of judicial review. The Court thus applied an objective test to the subjectively worded powers in section 30; if it Court had applied a subjective test, it would have deferred to the subjective satisfaction of the Minister that the detention was in the interests of public safety, peace and

1272:

decision meant that a detention order cannot be challenged on the basis that it was made for reasons completely outside the scope of the ISA. This was because on the facts of the case it had not been established that the applicant was re-detained for reasons not contemplated by section 8(1) of the

835:

Subject to the provisions of this Act an award shall be final and conclusive, and no award or decision or order of a Court or the President or a referee shall be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed, or called in question in any court and shall not be subject to certiorari, prohibition,

442:

by mandating that the courts are to apply a subjective test to the exercise of the discretion, and by excluding judicial review except where there is doubt whether the procedures set out in the Act were adhered to. Nevertheless, the subjective test is only applicable in the context of the ISA, and

1056:

Another method employed by the legislature to restrict judicial review by the courts is to cast statutory language in a subjective form. A subjectively worded power suggests that the discretion to exercise this power rests entirely with the minister, statutory body or agency referred to, in which

890:

The High Court held that the ouster clause in section 14(5) of the Employment Act was ineffective as there had been a breach of the rules of natural justice in the process by which the Minister's decision was reached. In his judgment, Justice Warren L. H. Khoo stated that the "broad principle" in

886:

under section 14 of the Employment Act to be reinstated. After investigating this claim, the Ministry came to the conclusion that the dismissal was made without just cause and recommended payment to the employee. Although section 14(5) of the Employment Act provides that "the decision of the

853:

but only to observe that the House of Lords had held the ouster clause involved in that case to be irrelevant because a purported determination by the Foreign Compensation Commission which was legally incorrect could not be considered a real determination and had no effect at all. Ultimately, the

844:

and its effect on the effectiveness of ouster clauses. Instead, the Court cited UK authorities holding that ouster clauses are ineffective when there has been an absence of jurisdiction or an excess of jurisdiction on the part of the decision-maker, a position which characterised the law prior to

590:

had defined the concept of jurisdictional error of law so broadly that it had made redundant the old divide between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors and had "led to the use of the word 'jurisdictional' in a wide sense to cover all errors of law which entailed illegality". The judgment

764:

has yet to be resolved. There is some uncertainty as to the extent the exception applies to decision-makers other than visitors. Where the second reason is concerned, Cane has noted that the correctness of the distinction between administrative tribunals and courts may be questionable as such an

513:

is never to be taken away by any statute except by the most clear and explicit words. The word 'final' is not enough." The effect of such a clause is to make "the decision final on the facts, but not final on the law. Notwithstanding that the decision is by a statute made 'final,' certiorari can

1215:

Jayakumar said that while the Government recognised that the subjective test enhanced the potential for abuse of executive discretion under the ISA, the best safeguard against such abuse of power was not to give the courts powers of judicial review because an unscrupulous government could still

626:

as implying that any action committed in error by an administrative agency or body is deemed to affect the jurisdiction of the body to carry out the action, and hence is reviewable by a court of law despite the ouster clause. The blurred distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional

397:. Similarly, the existence of bad faith entitles applicants to challenge decisions of authorities despite the existence of statutory provisions declaring such decisions to be conclusive evidence of certain facts. In the absence of bad faith, the courts will enforce conclusive evidence clauses. 585:

However, what is of significance is that his Lordship did not expressly reject the effectiveness of such ouster clauses where the decision is valid. He recognised that "ndoubtedly such a provision protects every determination which is not a nullity". Peter Cane has written that Lord Reid thus

2471: 2458: 903:

hen words in a statute oust the power of the High Court to review decisions of an inferior tribunal by certiorari, they must be construed strictly... they will not have the effect of ousting that power if the inferior tribunal has acted without jurisdiction or "if it has done or failed to do

830:

position on ouster clauses applies in Singapore; that is, the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law persists, and an ouster clause is only ineffective where a jurisdictional error of law has been committed. The ouster clause in question was section 46 of the

1251:. Therefore, applying the subjective test, the respondents' burden of justifying the legality of the applicant's detention was discharged as the respondents had produced a valid detention order and evidence of the subjective satisfaction of the President, acting on the advice of the 1263:

as the law governing judicial review of decisions made or acts done pursuant to the executive's powers under the ISA. In order to determine the law on judicial review of the exercise of executive discretion under the ISA, it is necessary to ascertain the exact decision laid down in

1258:

The applicant then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal construed section 8B(1) in accordance with the clear legislative intention expressed through the plain wording of the provision. It held that the provision reinstates the legal position laid down in

482:

whereby judges finally declare the legal limits of power and also as the individual's ultimate recourse to the law is denied. Hence, courts try to construe these strictly to minimise their impact. In so doing, they may be going against the grain of parliamentary will."

456:

A decision of the Presidential Elections Committee as to whether a candidate for election to the office of President has fulfilled the requirement of paragraph (e) or (g)(iv) of Article 19(2) shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal or review in any court.

701:(overseer) of a university. Lord Browne-Wilkinson found that there were two reasons why the general rule that all errors of law are reviewable does not apply to visitors. First, the reason why courts can intervene in a normal case where the decision is considered 1137:, later Singapore decisions have confirmed this as the correct approach. It gave several reasons for its decision. First, the reasoning in cases supporting a subjective test was found to be questionable, and, secondly, such a test was inconsistent with 438:. Hence, the jurisdiction of the High Court was not completely ousted, and it could objectively examine whether the relevant decision-makers had exercised their powers properly. However, legislative amendments to the ISA in 1989 reversed the effect of 1008:

are used, then the legislative intention is that questions as to invalidity may be raised on the specified grounds in the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, but that otherwise the jurisdiction of the court is excluded in the interest of

908:

Lord Reid at p. 171 . But if the inferior tribunal has merely made an error of law which does not affect its jurisdiction, and if its decision is not a nullity for some reason such as breach of the rules of natural justice, then the ouster will be

1320:

Whenever the Minister is satisfied with respect to any person, whether the person is at large or in custody, that the person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature, the Minister may, with the consent of the Public Prosecutor —

514:

still issue for excess of jurisdiction or for error of law on the face of the record." However, in the light of developments in the law, such a differentiation may no longer be applicable depending on the judicial school of thought employed.

494:, an ouster clause precludes a court from interfering with a decision made by a public authority which was acting within its jurisdiction, but committed a non-jurisdictional error of law. However, the clause is not effective in preventing 1329:

that it is necessary that the person be detained in the interests of public safety, peace and good order, by order under his hand direct that the person be detained for any period not exceeding 12 months from the date of the order;

810:

Tribunal to be subject to judicial review. Thus, judicial review would only be permitted from an Upper Tribunal decision if it would "raise some important point of principle or practice" or there was "some other compelling reason".

1337:

that it is necessary that the person be subject to the supervision of the police, by order direct that the person be subject to the supervision of the police for any period not exceeding 3 years from the date of the order.

541:, their Lordships were faced with a provision which stated that "the determination by the Commission of any application made to them under this Act shall not be called in question in any court of law". In his judgment, 1216:

tamper with the composition of the courts to impair this judicial check. Instead, the crucial safeguard was for the electorate to make wise voting choices to put an honest and incorruptible government into power.

938:

because the decision had been "based on a breach of natural justice and not the doctrine of error of law". He also considered an academic argument that an ouster clause may be inconsistent with Article 93 of the

1243:(1989). Justice Frederick Arthur Chua held that sections 8B(1) and 8B(2) of the ISA govern judicial review in the context of that Act, and thus preclude any consideration of the legal position laid down in the 869:

case involving the Minister suggests that in Singapore ouster clauses remain effective to prevent non-jurisdictional errors of law committed by public authorities from being challenged in court, unlike the UK

715:

and statutes) of which he was the sole arbiter and over which the courts had no cognizance. Therefore, the visitor "cannot err in law in reaching decision since the general law is not the applicable law".

756:

and conclusive the High Court should not be astute to find that the inferior court's decision on a question of law had not been made final and conclusive, thereby excluding the jurisdiction to review it."

1229:

only applies to the judicial review of detention orders and not to other acts or decisions under the ISA by the President or Minister, such as suspension directions and revocations of such directions.

968:

gave a dissenting opinion in which he doubted whether an order that had been obtained by corrupt or fraudulent means could be protected from being questioned in court. Despite the subsequent ruling in

887:

Minister on any representation made under this section shall be final and conclusive and shall not be challenged in any court", the company applied for judicial review against the Minister's decision.

390:

from exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the exercise of executive power where authorities have committed jurisdictional errors of law, but are effective against non-jurisdictional errors of law.

2035: 3654: 586:

affirmed that "the ouster clause in question would be effective to prevent the award of a judicial review remedy only if the error of law was within jurisdiction". However, it appears that

393:

A partial ouster or time limit clause specifies a restricted period, after which no remedy will be available. Such clauses are generally effective, unless the public authority has acted in

1296:. Apart from restricting the courts' supervisory jurisdiction to reviewing decisions made under the ISA for procedural impropriety, Parliament did not disturb the principle laid down in 3052: 1032:(2006), the Court clarified that section 5(3) cannot prevent judicial intervention if there is evidence that the Government exercised its power of compulsory acquisition in bad faith. 471:

the total ouster or finality clause, which is inserted into a statute to indicate that the decision of a particular judge or tribunal is final and cannot be challenged by any court.

2282: 1161:

as the law governing judicial review of the executive's discretionary powers under the ISA. These Acts came into force on 27 and 30 January 1989 respectively. Speaking during the

1059: 1583: 1347:, the validity of an order for preventive detention made by the Minister under section 30 of the CLTPA is dependent on the objective satisfaction of the Minister. Moreover, in 760:

general and domestic law arising. As such, the view taken by Lord Browne-Wilkinson cannot be as cleanly applied as he had described it to be. Moreover, the actual scope of

575:, have misconstrued the provisions giving it power to act so that it failed to deal with the question remitted to it and decided some question which was not remitted to it. 3918: 2833:

Leyland, Peter; Anthony, Gordon (2009), "Express and Implied Limits on Judicial Review: Ouster and Time Limit Clauses, the Prerogative Power, Public Interest Immunity",

1897:

quashed, or called in question in any court and shall not be subject to any Quashing Order, Prohibiting Order, Mandatory Order or injunction in any court on any account.

1400:

Peter Leyland; Gordon Anthony (2009), "Express and Implied Limits on Judicial Review: Ouster and Time Limit Clauses, the Prerogative Power, Public Interest Immunity",

537:

is regarded as having abolished the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law when it was considering the effect of an ouster clause. In

1177:

empower the courts to substitute their views on the proper exercise of discretionary power conferred under the ISA for that of the executive in contravention of the

719:

Secondly, there is a difference between the kinds of tribunals the decisions of which are being considered for judicial review. The source of this reasoning is the

3592: 1286:

continues to be the law governing judicial review of the exercise of executive discretion under subjectively worded provisions in statutes other than the ISA. In

3644: 474:

The main legal issue with ouster clauses is whether it is in fact possible to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts by the use of carefully drafted provisions.

170: 3688: 2970:

Forsyth, Christopher (1998), "'The Metaphysic of Nullity' – Invalidity, Conceptual Reasoning and the Rule of Law", in Forsyth, Christopher; Hare, Ivan (eds.),

1076: 2566: 854:

Court quashed the order made by the Industrial Arbitration Court because it contained an error of law which had caused that court to exceed its jurisdiction.

2050: 3751: 3033: 2632: 1313: 1239: 3893: 3518: 3385: 944:

between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law. Nevertheless, he highlighted the fact that he was not expressing an opinion on the issue.

581:

It may have based its decision on some matter which, under the legal provisions establishing the decision-maker, it had no right to take into account.

2739: 2732: 2368: 2322: 1153:

On 25 January 1989, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 1989 and the Internal Security (Amendment) Act 1989 were passed by

3883: 3626: 636: 3873: 3209: 2161: 1351:(2007), which also involved judicial review of an applicant's detention under section 30 of the CLTPA, the High Court, following the decision in 635:

and concluded that the courts will intervene to ensure that the powers of public decision-making bodies are exercised lawfully. In his judgment,

3928: 3513: 3314: 3888: 3675: 1072: 346: 443:

the rule that an objective test applies to subjectively worded powers continues to apply where statutes other than the ISA are concerned.

3978: 3140: 3135: 3130: 3125: 3120: 3115: 3110: 2702: 1562: 1138: 529: 964:, "plain words must be given their plain meaning", even though fraud on the part of the public authority had been alleged. In contrast, 3793: 3781: 3636: 3416: 3105: 2897: 2875: 2728: 2318: 1840: 1121: 1068: 802: 406: 2745: 2536: 3788: 3723: 3621: 3573: 3269: 3072: 2711: 1571: 615: 550:

decision-maker has jurisdiction to decide, the determination is also a nullity. He then gave a non-exhaustive list of these cases:

534: 4004: 3999: 3960: 3701: 3659: 3183: 3026: 1549: 1359:

meant that the scope of judicial review as regards the exercise of the Minister's discretion under section 30 was limited to the

953:

which case the decision impugned may be subject to judicial review even though the time permitted for challenging it has lapsed.

732: 1145:. Finally, the notion of a subjective or unfettered discretion was contrary to the rule of law and all powers had legal limits. 3649: 1356: 3934: 3246: 3077: 3002: 2979: 2960: 2852: 2823: 1487: 1453: 1419: 1169: 960:(1956), the House of Lords concluded by a majority that they could not impugn a partial ouster clause because, according to 3847: 3236: 2157: 1930: 1791: 1510: 1097: 977: 766: 427: 3219: 2784: 1712: 961: 786: 651: 2526:

Jayakumar, Second Reading of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill (25 January 1989), col. 532.

2508:

Jayakumar, Second Reading of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill (25 January 1989), col. 524.

3898: 3508: 3319: 3019: 383: 3913: 3756: 3696: 3568: 3374: 3241: 3087: 3082: 2791: 2404: 2256: 1288: 1204: 1178: 1093: 479: 415: 264: 591:

thus had the effect of reducing the effect of statutory ouster clauses and expanding the limits of judicial review.

370:

to protect the exercise of executive power. Typically, this has been done though the insertion of finality or total

3857: 1445: 883: 862: 339: 276: 259: 3939: 3761: 3601: 1207:

to confirm that exercise of discretion under the latter Act was subjective, rather than objective as held by the

1192: 914: 487: 254: 2036:"Judicial Review – From Angst to Empathy: A Lecture to Singapore Management University Second Year Law Students" 1133:, which had held to the contrary. While the Court's views regarding the applicability of an objective test were 3923: 3831: 3409: 3251: 3224: 2878:

South East Asia Fire Bricks Sdn. Bhd. v. Non-Metallic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees Union and Others

984:

and upheld the validity of a partial ouster clause that gave the applicants six weeks to challenge a decision.

744: 707:

is because the law applicable to a decision made by such a body is the general law of the land. The visitor in

299: 3466: 3178: 985: 506: 244: 1162: 467: 375: 50: 3826: 3803: 3528: 3503: 3292: 3279: 2735: 2241: 1208: 1116: 411: 401: 304: 38: 2372: 2326: 3578: 3461: 3356: 3173: 2488: 1166: 332: 294: 249: 218: 26: 3771: 3728: 3523: 3309: 3287: 3145: 2944: 654:

disapproved of certain pronouncements by the lower courts which appeared to signal a return to the pre-

2492: 1129:

grounds of judicial review. In coming to this decision, it disapproved of a 1971 High Court decision,

1004:

clause is that questions as to validity are not excluded. When paragraphs such as those considered in

498:

of errors of law that affect the jurisdiction of the authority to make the decision. For instance, in

3908: 3808: 3738: 3563: 3550: 3540: 3402: 3304: 3229: 3097: 3042: 2914: 1383: 1200: 1142: 724: 618:

held that in general all errors of law, whether jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional, are reviewable.

2517:

Jayakumar, "Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill" (25 January 1989), col. 463.

1542:

South East Asia Fire Bricks Sdn. Bhd. v. Non-Metallic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees Union

737:

South East Asia Fire Bricks Sdn. Bhd. v. Non-Metallic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees Union

3973: 3955: 3798: 3766: 1292:(2011), the Court of Appeal opined that the 1989 legislative amendments did not completely reverse 631:(1992). The House of Lords reviewed the development of general principles of judicial review since 269: 2493:

speech during the Second Reading of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill

1108:"is satisfied" that this step is necessary because the person is, among other things, a threat to 904:

something in the course of the inquiry which is of such a nature that its decision is a nullity":

3818: 3533: 3487: 3451: 3340: 3335: 3297: 3204: 3155: 2994: 2952: 2840: 2815: 2721: 1872: 1479: 1407: 1196: 1173: 1154: 866: 819: 387: 363: 34: 2844: 2834: 1411: 1401: 697:

when their Lordships dealt with whether the court can intervene and review a decision made by a

3776: 3558: 3482: 3446: 3214: 3199: 3163: 1725: 1232: 1105: 965: 940: 659: 542: 503: 423: 180: 175: 84: 30: 2972:

The Golden Metwand and the Crooked Cord: Essays on Public Law in Honour of Sir William Wade QC

1439: 578:

It may have refused to take into account something which it was required to take into account.

21: 1910: 594: 224: 207: 79: 3011: 1188: 414:

took the view that an objective test applied to the exercise of discretion conferred by the

3903: 3456: 3168: 2923: 1252: 1101: 1067:

case", 1983); in other words, the exercise of power may be invalidated if determined to be

673:, such review should be available to challenge the legality of decisions of public bodies. 527:

The starting point for analysing ouster clauses and their effects is the landmark decision

431: 74: 1591: 711:

did not apply the general law of the land but, rather, a "domestic law" (the university's

8: 3878: 1545: 989: 805:, Parliament had rationalised the system of administrative tribunals and had created the 200: 130: 777: 3852: 2947:(1995), "Jurisdiction, Judicial Control, and Agency Autonomy", in Loveland, Ian (ed.), 2668: 2388: 2129: 1926: 1844: 1787: 1506: 720: 599: 320: 185: 60: 45:

over acts and decisions of certain public authorities through various means, including

2237: 2217: 840:

The Court neither expressly rejected nor affirmed the abolition of the distinction in

731:(1978). Lord Browne-Wilkinson noted that this dissenting judgment was approved by the 3746: 2998: 2975: 2956: 2848: 2819: 2796: 2409: 1483: 1449: 1415: 1109: 1050:(a) directing that such person be detained for any period not exceeding two years ... 917: 435: 2780: 2770: 1708: 1658: 1041:

An example of a subjectively worded power: Section 8(1) of the Internal Security Act

3425: 2707: 2287: 2089: 1807: 1674: 1567: 1182: 879: 572: 564:

It may have failed in the course of the inquiry to comply with the requirements of

212: 104: 16:

Singapore's application of legal concept to protect the exercise of executive power

789:

held that not all decisions of the Upper Tribunal are subject to judicial review.

611: 565: 495: 379: 190: 161: 94: 42: 490:

concept: jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law. Traditionally, at

2031: 1024: 921: 857: 806: 782: 478:

has noted that "courts generally loathe ouster clauses as these contradict the

452:

An example of a finality clause: Article 18(9) of the Constitution of Singapore

89: 1859:, pp. 145–148, paras. 123–133 (the quoted phrases are from p. 147, para. 129). 3993: 934: 463: 371: 117: 99: 46: 1233:

Operation of subjectively worded powers in the ISA after the 1989 amendments

878:(1999), an employee fired for incompetence accused the plaintiff company of 400:

In general, subjectively worded powers are also viewed restrictively by the

2484: 136: 2631:

Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap. 67, 1985 Rev. Ed.), now the

2989:

Wade, William ; Forsyth, Christopher (2009), "Restriction of Remedies",

2457:

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 1989 (

1435: 772: 752: 703: 669: 475: 195: 150: 1237:

The 1989 amendments to the ISA were challenged before the High Court in

2636: 2325:, 2 S.L.R.(R.) 525 at 563, para. 119, C.A. (Singapore), archived from 510: 491: 144: 110: 2412:, 2 S.L.R. 1189 at 1233–1234, paras. 79–80, C.A. (Singapore). 1387: 2260: 2190: 1979: 1885: 1587: 1023:(1980), the applicant alleged that the Collector of Land Revenue had 555: 419: 394: 367: 1967:

Stansfield Business International Pte. Ltd. v. Minister for Manpower

1438:(1999), "Law and the Administrative State", in Kevin Y L Tan (ed.), 876:

Stansfield Business International Pte. Ltd. v. Minister for Manpower

3394: 2949:

A Special Relationship? American Influences on Public Law in the UK

2160:(England and Wales), cited with approval by Lord Justice of Appeal 124: 1312:(1992), the statutory provision in question was section 30 of the 2283:

Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service

1157:

to confirm the applicability of the subjective test laid down in

1060:

Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service

751:

only applies to administrative bodies or tribunals as there is a

712: 698: 681: 607: 2391:, 2 S.L.R.(R.) 239 at 313, para. 149, H.C. (Singapore). 1305:, it should be taken to have implicitly endorsed the principle. 2232:, pp. 523–526, para. 36–42, approved by the Court of Appeal in 3041: 2126:

R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler

974:

R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler

3919:

Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019

1399: 2917:(1969), "Constitutional and Administrative Aspects of the 2734:

_SGCA_16.html [1988] SGCA 16], 2 S.L.R.(R.) 525,

1755: 1753: 561:

It may have made a decision which it had no power to make.

2767:

R. v. Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page

2234:

Teng Fuh Holdings Pte. Ltd. v. Collector of Land Revenue

2214:

Teng Fuh Holdings Pte. Ltd. v. Collector of Land Revenue

1884:

Industrial Relations Act (Cap. 124, 1970 Rev. Ed.), now

1655:

R. v. Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page

1030:

Teng Fuh Holdings Pte. Ltd. v. Collector of Land Revenue

629:

R. v. Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page

1750: 947: 781:

Field House at 15 Bream's Buildings, London, where the

2655:

1 S.L.R.(R.) 1 at 8–9, paras. 16–18, H.C. (Singapore).

2470:

Internal Security (Amendment) Act 1989 1989 (

1255:, that the applicant was a risk to national security. 895:

governing the matter had been restated in the case of

773:

Comprehensive tribunal system to correct errors of law

3053:

Text of the Constitution at Singapore Statutes Online

2189:

Land Acquisition Act (Cap. 272, 1970 Rev. Ed.), now

1343:

The Court of Appeal suggested that, in the light of

3929:

Third-Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Act 2015

2371:, S.L.R.(R.) 135, H.C. (Singapore), archived from 1355:, held that the absence of the need to establish a 1268:. However, the Court declined to opine whether the 928:. He pointed out that Justice Khoo's statements on 836:

mandamus or injunction in any court on any account.

446: 3519:Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Tribunal 3386:Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Tribunal 2240:, 2 S.L.R.(R.) 568 at 575–578, paras. 24–41, 2166:R. v. Cornwall County Council, ex parte Huntington 2154:R. v. Cornwall County Council, ex parte Huntington 1784:Pearlman v. Keepers and Governors of Harrow School 994:R. v. Cornwall County Council, ex parte Huntington 729:Pearlman v. Keepers and Governors of Harrow School 646:The issue was revisited in the subsequent case of 554:The decision-maker may have given its decision in 509:said that it was "well settled that the remedy by 2703:Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission 1563:Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission 1536: 1534: 648:R. (on the application of Cart) v. Upper Tribunal 530:Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission 3991: 3884:Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act 2015 2898:"Review of Ouster Clauses in Administrative Law" 2741:_SGCA_16.html the original] on 24 December 2011. 2497:Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report 2385:Law Society of Singapore v. Tan Guat Neo Phyllis 2168:1 All E.R. 694 at 698, C.A. (England and Wales). 1603: 1601: 1599: 1148: 1087: 797:judgment. Having affirmed the position taken in 3874:Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021 2361: 2359: 1923:R. v. Medical Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gilmore 1503:R. v. Medical Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gilmore 1185:on matters of national security under the ISA. 1082: 662:, this was not justified as "the importance of 500:R. v. Medical Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gilmore 386:suggest that ouster clauses cannot prevent the 2832: 2671:, 4 S.L.R.(R.) 676, H.C. (Singapore). 2220:, 3 S.L.R.(R.) 507, H.C. (Singapore). 2030: 1531: 1379: 1377: 1013: 682:Decisions under domestic laws; court decisions 627:errors of law was recognised and discussed in 606:where the issue was whether the decision of a 3889:Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act 3410: 3027: 2974:, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 141–160, 1978:Employment Act (Cap. 91, 1996 Rev. Ed.), now 1596: 1521: 1519: 1035: 693:This middle ground approach was discussed in 340: 2620:Kamal Jit Singh v. Minister for Home Affairs 2356: 1310:Kamal Jit Singh v. Minister for Home Affairs 1199:until 1999. In 1989, Parliament amended the 1000:The intention of Parliament when it uses an 610:(overseer) of the university was subject to 3979:List of acts of the Parliament of Singapore 2988: 2876:"Jurisdictional Theory in the Melting Pot: 2799:, 2 S.L.R. 1189, C.A. (Singapore). 1740: 1738: 1685: 1683: 1641: 1639: 1637: 1434: 1374: 769:and, apparently, by Lord Diplock himself." 686:Despite the extensiveness of the ruling in 667:judicial review require justification and, 3417: 3403: 3034: 3020: 2810:Cane, Peter (2004), "Substantive Review", 2729:Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs 2653:Tan Gek Neo Jessie v. Minister for Finance 2499:(25 January 1989), vol. 52, cols. 466–471. 2319:Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs 2132:, Q.B. 122, C.A. (England and Wales). 2086:Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council 2049:: 469–489 at 476, para. 17, archived from 1841:Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 1516: 1473: 1469: 1467: 1465: 1122:Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs 958:Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council 803:Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 407:Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs 347: 333: 3043:Constitution of the Republic of Singapore 2757:Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs 2746:Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs 2567:Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs 2537:Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs 2366:Lee Mau Seng v. Minister for Home Affairs 1474:Peter Cane (2004), "Substantive Review", 1384:Constitution of the Republic of Singapore 1240:Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs 1131:Lee Mau Seng v. Minister for Home Affairs 3724:Singapore International Mediation Centre 3574:Presidential Council for Minority Rights 3270:Presidential Council for Minority Rights 2839:(6th ed.), Oxford; New York, N.Y.: 1735: 1680: 1634: 1406:(6th ed.), Oxford; New York, N.Y.: 1187: 856: 776: 593: 20: 3961:Integrated Electronic Litigation System 3752:Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 2969: 2873: 2633:Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 2399: 2397: 2312: 2310: 2308: 1700: 1698: 1462: 1314:Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 831:Industrial Relations Act which states: 733:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 3992: 3894:Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 3655:Relevant and irrelevant considerations 2252: 2250: 1724:The pronouncements were summarized by 1165:of the constitutional amendment bill, 793:Another exception can be found in the 486:Ouster clauses are related to another 3935:Transboundary Haze Pollution Act 2014 3398: 3247:Non-constituency Member of Parliament 3015: 2943: 2812:An Introduction to Administrative Law 2759:1 S.L.R.(R.) 347, C.A. (Singapore) (" 2749:1 S.L.R.(R.) 461, H.C. (Singapore) (" 2570:1 S.L.R.(R.) 347, C.A. (Singapore) (" 2540:1 S.L.R.(R.) 461, H.C. (Singapore) (" 2261:Cap. 143, 1985 Rev. Ed. 2191:Cap. 152, 1985 Rev. Ed. 1886:Cap. 136, 2004 Rev. Ed. 1476:An Introduction to Administrative Law 913:In a 2010 lecture to students of the 813: 420:Cap. 143, 1985 Rev. Ed. 3848:Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 3424: 2913: 2895: 2809: 2637:Cap. 67, 2000 Rev. Ed. 2394: 2305: 1980:Cap. 91, 2009 Rev. Ed. 1695: 1316:("CLTPA"), which states as follows: 1276: 978:Court of Appeal of England and Wales 948:Partial ouster or time limit clauses 3789:Prevention of Human Trafficking Act 2622:3 S.L.R.(R.) 352, C.A. (Singapore). 2247: 2076:Leyland & Anthony, pp. 399–402. 1969:2 S.L.R.(R.) 866, H.C. (Singapore). 652:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 434:of persons thought to be a risk to 13: 3899:Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 3660:Substantive legitimate expectation 2862: 2586:(C.A.), pp. 359–360, paras. 20–22. 2556:(H.C.), pp. 469–470, paras. 13–15. 1247:remarks of the Court of Appeal in 924:briefly discussed the decision in 785:is based. In a 2011 judgment, the 739:(1980), and also by a majority in 49:and subjectively worded powers in 14: 4016: 3914:Personal Data Protection Act 2012 3702:Procedural legitimate expectation 3366:Special powers against subversion 3242:Group Representation Constituency 2792:Yong Vui Kong v. Attorney-General 2598:(C.A.), p. 366–368, paras. 42–44. 2405:Yong Vui Kong v. Attorney-General 2180:S.L.R.(R.) 589, H.C. (Singapore). 1289:Yong Vui Kong v. Attorney-General 747:highlighted that the decision in 3858:Administration of Muslim Law Act 3591: 2902:Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 2043:Singapore Academy of Law Journal 1357:jurisdictional or precedent fact 882:and made representations to the 447:Total ouster or finality clauses 3940:Workplace Safety and Health Act 2997:, pp. 582–634 at 610–631, 2674: 2658: 2642: 2625: 2613: 2601: 2589: 2577: 2559: 2547: 2529: 2520: 2511: 2502: 2477: 2474:), in force on 30 January 1989. 2464: 2461:), in force on 27 January 1989. 2451: 2439: 2427: 2415: 2378: 2344: 2332: 2293: 2275: 2266: 2223: 2207: 2195: 2183: 2171: 2147: 2135: 2119: 2107: 2095: 2079: 2070: 2061: 2024: 2008: 1996: 1984: 1972: 1960: 1948: 1936: 1916: 1900: 1890: 1878: 1862: 1850: 1834: 1825: 1813: 1797: 1777: 1765: 1718: 1664: 1648: 1625: 1613: 1552: (on appeal from Malaysia). 1482:, pp. 228–261 at 240–241, 1388:1985 Rev. Ed., 1999 Reprint 915:Singapore Management University 522: 4005:Singaporean constitutional law 4000:Singaporean administrative law 3924:Silver Support Scheme Act 2015 3794:Protection from Harassment Act 3782:Section 377A of the Penal Code 3252:Nominated Member of Parliament 2836:Textbook on Administrative Law 2803: 2272:Leyland & Anthony, p. 403. 1577: 1555: 1496: 1428: 1403:Textbook on Administrative Law 1393: 517: 1: 2690: 2651:, p. 360, para. 22. See also 1677:, 2 A.C. 237, H.L. (UK). 1584:Foreign Compensation Act 1950 1179:separation of powers doctrine 1149:1989 legislative intervention 1102:detain a person without trial 1088:Subjective or objective test? 826:(1978) suggests that the pre- 676: 37:has attempted to prevent the 3804:Undesirable Publications Act 3617:Exclusion of judicial review 3068:Exclusion of judicial review 2718:Re Application by Yee Yut Ee 2683:, pp. 681–682, paras. 12–13. 2436:, pp. 551–552, paras. 79–82. 2424:, pp. 545–549, paras. 56–69. 2178:Galstaun v. Attorney-General 2005:, pp. 875–877, paras. 26–34. 1957:, pp. 496–497, paras. 29–31. 1869:Re Application by Yee Yut Ee 1804:Re Racal Communications Ltd. 1083:In the Internal Security Act 1021:Galstaun v. Attorney-General 824:Re Application by Yee Yut Ee 765:approach was "rejected by a 743:(1980). In the latter case, 741:Re Racal Communications Ltd. 598:The Derwent Building of the 360:Exclusion of judicial review 7: 3579:Singaporean nationality law 3357:Singaporean nationality law 2874:Harding, Andrew J. (1980), 2867: 2777:R. (Cart) v. Upper Tribunal 2773:, A.C. 682, H.L. (UK). 2738:(Singapore), archived from 2290:, A.C. 374, H.L. (UK). 2092:, A.C. 736, H.L. (UK). 2015:South East Asia Fire Bricks 1907:R. v. Hurst, ex parte Smith 1810:, A.C. 374, H.L. (UK). 1705:R. (Cart) v. Upper Tribunal 1661:, A.C. 682, H.L. (UK). 1448:, pp. 160–229 at 195, 1444:(2nd ed.), Singapore: 1014:Conclusive evidence clauses 897:South East Asia Fire Bricks 10: 4021: 3729:Singapore Mediation Centre 2610:, pp. 1233–1234, para. 79. 1446:Singapore University Press 1441:The Singapore Legal System 1036:Subjectively worded powers 533:(1968). In that case, the 362:has been attempted by the 3969: 3948: 3909:Payment Services Act 2019 3866: 3840: 3817: 3737: 3714: 3687: 3668: 3635: 3609: 3600: 3589: 3549: 3496: 3475: 3439: 3432: 3383: 3365: 3349: 3328: 3278: 3260: 3192: 3154: 3096: 3060: 3049: 2993:(10th ed.), Oxford: 2130:[1976] EWCA Civ 6 1927:[1957] EWCA Civ 1 1788:[1978] EWCA Civ 5 1507:[1957] EWCA Civ 1 1098:Minister for Home Affairs 849:. The Court did refer to 622:Later cases have treated 428:Minister for Home Affairs 3974:Sources of Singapore law 3956:Electronic Filing System 3767:Organised Crime Act 2015 3261:The Presidential Council 3237:Leader of the Opposition 3078:Representative democracy 2937: 2814:(4th ed.), Oxford: 2695: 1548:, A.C. 363 at 369–370, 1478:(4th ed.), Oxford: 1367: 1195:, which was the seat of 237:common law jurisdictions 3645:Fettering of discretion 3341:Singapore Legal Service 3336:Singapore Civil Service 2995:Oxford University Press 2841:Oxford University Press 2669:[2007] SGHC 147 2389:[2007] SGHC 207 2341:, p. 543, paras. 46–47. 2156:3 All E.R. 566 at 575, 2067:Chan, p. 477, para. 19. 1993:, p. 873, paras. 19–20. 1408:Oxford University Press 1019:of judicial review. In 658:position. According to 432:detention without trial 287:civil law jurisdictions 225:Patent unreasonableness 171:Fettering of discretion 31:four official languages 3689:Procedural impropriety 2781:[2011] UKSC 28 2771:[1992] UKHL 12 2369:[1971] SGHC 10 2323:[1988] SGCA 16 2263:) ("ISA"), s. 8(1)(a). 2238:[2007] SGCA 14 2218:[2006] SGHC 93 2144:, pp. 128–130 and 133. 1929:, 1 Q.B. 574 at 586, 1709:[2011] UKSC 28 1659:[1992] UKHL 12 1546:[1980] UKPC 21 1341: 1212: 1053: 1011: 941:Singapore Constitution 911: 871: 838: 790: 619: 504:Lord Justice of Appeal 459: 181:Nondelegation doctrine 176:Legitimate expectation 85:Exhaustion of remedies 54: 3757:Internal Security Act 3650:Precedent fact errors 3569:Internal Security Act 3509:Judicial independence 3375:Internal Security Act 3320:Judicial independence 3098:Fundamental liberties 2797:[2011] SGCA 9 2708:[1968] UKHL 6 2410:[2011] SGCA 9 2288:[1983] UKHL 6 2257:Internal Security Act 2090:[1956] UKHL 2 1808:[1980] UKHL 5 1675:[1983] UKHL 1 1568:[1968] UKHL 6 1318: 1205:Internal Security Act 1191: 1096:("ISA") empowers the 1094:Internal Security Act 1077:procedurally improper 1043: 1025:compulsorily acquired 998: 901: 884:Minister for Manpower 860: 833: 780: 637:Lord Browne-Wilkinson 597: 454: 416:Internal Security Act 285:Administrative law in 235:Administrative law in 80:Delegated legislation 24: 3904:Pawnbrokers Act 2015 3368:and emergency powers 3088:Separation of powers 2924:Law Quarterly Review 2818:, pp. 228–261, 2329:on 24 December 2011. 1933:(England and Wales). 1913:(England and Wales). 1794:(England and Wales). 1762:, p. 145, para. 122. 1747:, p. 142, para. 110. 1732:, p. 141, para. 108. 1513:(England and Wales). 1193:Old Parliament House 1092:Section 8(1) of the 863:Ministry of Manpower 75:Administrative court 3879:Income Tax Act 1947 3762:Misuse of Drugs Act 3715:Alternative dispute 3263:for Minority Rights 2896:Todd, Paul (1977), 2448:, p. 553, para. 86. 2353:, p. 545, para. 55. 2021:, p. 874, para. 21. 2017:, p. 370, cited in 1945:, p. 495, para. 24. 1909:2 Q.B. 133 at 142, 1671:O'Reilly v. Mackman 990:Master of the Rolls 721:dissenting judgment 641:O'Reilly v. Mackman 602:. In the 1992 case 571:It may, in perfect 201:Fundamental justice 3602:Administrative law 3476:Legislative branch 3433:Constitutional law 3329:The Public Service 3061:General principles 2991:Administrative Law 2472:No. 2 of 1989 2459:No. 1 of 1989 2375:on 5 January 2012. 2302:case, pp. 410–411. 2204:, p. 591, para. 9. 2034:(September 2010), 1412:392–437 at 392–393 1335:if he is satisfied 1327:if he is satisfied 1213: 872: 814:Singapore position 791: 620: 600:University of Hull 488:administrative law 376:Acts of Parliament 321:Constitutional law 186:Procedural justice 67:General principles 61:Administrative law 55: 3987: 3986: 3747:Arms Offences Act 3710: 3709: 3587: 3586: 3514:Judicial officers 3392: 3391: 3315:Judicial officers 3004:978-0-19-923161-4 2981:978-0-19-826469-9 2962:978-0-19-826014-1 2884:Malaya Law Review 2854:978-0-19-921776-2 2825:978-0-19-926898-6 2720:S.L.R.(R.) 490, 1871:S.L.R.(R.) 490, 1489:978-0-19-926898-6 1455:978-9971-69-213-1 1421:978-0-19-921776-2 1277:In other statutes 1110:national security 865:Building. A 1999 436:national security 422:) ("ISA") on the 357: 356: 4012: 3679:unreasonableness 3627:Threshold issues 3607: 3606: 3595: 3467:Attorney-General 3440:Executive branch 3437: 3436: 3426:Law of Singapore 3419: 3412: 3405: 3396: 3395: 3179:Attorney-General 3036: 3029: 3022: 3013: 3012: 3007: 2984: 2965: 2932: 2909: 2891: 2857: 2828: 2684: 2678: 2672: 2662: 2656: 2646: 2640: 2629: 2623: 2617: 2611: 2605: 2599: 2593: 2587: 2581: 2575: 2563: 2557: 2551: 2545: 2533: 2527: 2524: 2518: 2515: 2509: 2506: 2500: 2489:Minister for Law 2481: 2475: 2468: 2462: 2455: 2449: 2443: 2437: 2431: 2425: 2419: 2413: 2401: 2392: 2382: 2376: 2363: 2354: 2348: 2342: 2336: 2330: 2314: 2303: 2297: 2291: 2279: 2273: 2270: 2264: 2254: 2245: 2227: 2221: 2211: 2205: 2199: 2193: 2187: 2181: 2175: 2169: 2158:Divisional Court 2151: 2145: 2139: 2133: 2123: 2117: 2111: 2105: 2099: 2093: 2083: 2077: 2074: 2068: 2065: 2059: 2057: 2056:on 29 March 2012 2055: 2040: 2028: 2022: 2012: 2006: 2000: 1994: 1988: 1982: 1976: 1970: 1964: 1958: 1952: 1946: 1940: 1934: 1920: 1914: 1904: 1898: 1894: 1888: 1882: 1876: 1866: 1860: 1854: 1848: 1838: 1832: 1829: 1823: 1817: 1811: 1801: 1795: 1781: 1775: 1769: 1763: 1757: 1748: 1742: 1733: 1722: 1716: 1702: 1693: 1687: 1678: 1668: 1662: 1652: 1646: 1643: 1632: 1629: 1623: 1617: 1611: 1605: 1594: 1581: 1575: 1559: 1553: 1538: 1529: 1526:Ex parte Gilmore 1523: 1514: 1500: 1494: 1492: 1471: 1460: 1458: 1432: 1426: 1424: 1397: 1391: 1381: 1167:Minister for Law 1046:make an order — 962:Viscount Simonds 920:, Chief Justice 880:unfair dismissal 787:UK Supreme Court 767:Divisional Court 723:of Lord Justice 402:Singapore courts 349: 342: 335: 213:Unreasonableness 105:Prerogative writ 57: 56: 41:from exercising 27:Parliament House 4020: 4019: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4011: 4010: 4009: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3983: 3965: 3944: 3862: 3836: 3832:Women's Charter 3827:Matrimonial law 3813: 3733: 3716: 3706: 3683: 3664: 3631: 3596: 3583: 3545: 3529:Court of Appeal 3504:Judicial system 3497:Judicial branch 3492: 3471: 3428: 3423: 3393: 3388: 3379: 3367: 3361: 3345: 3324: 3293:Court of Appeal 3274: 3262: 3256: 3193:The Legislature 3188: 3150: 3092: 3056: 3045: 3040: 3005: 2982: 2963: 2955:, p. 173, 2953:Clarendon Press 2940: 2870: 2865: 2863:Further reading 2855: 2826: 2816:Clarendon Press 2806: 2783:, 1 A.C. 663, 2736:Court of Appeal 2710:, 2 A.C. 147, 2698: 2693: 2688: 2687: 2681:Re Wong Sin Yee 2679: 2675: 2665:Re Wong Sin Yee 2663: 2659: 2649:Kamal Jit Singh 2647: 2643: 2630: 2626: 2618: 2614: 2606: 2602: 2594: 2590: 2582: 2578: 2564: 2560: 2552: 2548: 2534: 2530: 2525: 2521: 2516: 2512: 2507: 2503: 2482: 2478: 2469: 2465: 2456: 2452: 2444: 2440: 2432: 2428: 2420: 2416: 2402: 2395: 2383: 2379: 2364: 2357: 2349: 2345: 2337: 2333: 2315: 2306: 2298: 2294: 2280: 2276: 2271: 2267: 2255: 2248: 2242:Court of Appeal 2228: 2224: 2212: 2208: 2200: 2196: 2188: 2184: 2176: 2172: 2152: 2148: 2142:Ex parte Ostler 2140: 2136: 2124: 2120: 2112: 2108: 2100: 2096: 2084: 2080: 2075: 2071: 2066: 2062: 2053: 2038: 2029: 2025: 2013: 2009: 2001: 1997: 1989: 1985: 1977: 1973: 1965: 1961: 1953: 1949: 1941: 1937: 1931:Court of Appeal 1921: 1917: 1905: 1901: 1895: 1891: 1883: 1879: 1867: 1863: 1855: 1851: 1839: 1835: 1830: 1826: 1818: 1814: 1802: 1798: 1792:Court of Appeal 1782: 1778: 1770: 1766: 1758: 1751: 1743: 1736: 1723: 1719: 1711:, 1 A.C. 663, 1703: 1696: 1688: 1681: 1669: 1665: 1653: 1649: 1644: 1635: 1630: 1626: 1618: 1614: 1606: 1597: 1593:, s. 4(4). 1582: 1578: 1570:, 2 A.C. 147, 1560: 1556: 1539: 1532: 1524: 1517: 1511:Court of Appeal 1509:, 1 Q.B. 574, 1501: 1497: 1490: 1480:Clarendon Press 1472: 1463: 1456: 1433: 1429: 1422: 1398: 1394: 1382: 1375: 1370: 1349:Re Wong Sin Yee 1279: 1235: 1211:in a 1988 case. 1209:Court of Appeal 1151: 1117:Court of Appeal 1115:In the seminal 1090: 1085: 1054: 1042: 1038: 1016: 950: 816: 775: 684: 679: 612:judicial review 566:natural justice 525: 520: 496:judicial review 460: 453: 449: 430:concerning the 412:Court of Appeal 384:Singapore cases 382:. In contrast, 380:judicial review 353: 286: 236: 208:Proportionality 191:Natural justice 162:judicial review 95:Ministerial act 43:judicial review 29:in Singapore's 17: 12: 11: 5: 4018: 4008: 4007: 4002: 3985: 3984: 3982: 3981: 3976: 3970: 3967: 3966: 3964: 3963: 3958: 3952: 3950: 3946: 3945: 3943: 3942: 3937: 3932: 3926: 3921: 3916: 3911: 3906: 3901: 3896: 3891: 3886: 3881: 3876: 3870: 3868: 3864: 3863: 3861: 3860: 3855: 3850: 3844: 3842: 3838: 3837: 3835: 3834: 3829: 3823: 3821: 3815: 3814: 3812: 3811: 3806: 3801: 3796: 3791: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3774: 3772:Kidnapping Act 3769: 3764: 3759: 3754: 3749: 3743: 3741: 3735: 3734: 3732: 3731: 3726: 3720: 3718: 3712: 3711: 3708: 3707: 3705: 3704: 3699: 3693: 3691: 3685: 3684: 3682: 3681: 3672: 3670: 3666: 3665: 3663: 3662: 3657: 3652: 3647: 3641: 3639: 3633: 3632: 3630: 3629: 3624: 3619: 3613: 3611: 3604: 3598: 3597: 3590: 3588: 3585: 3584: 3582: 3581: 3576: 3571: 3566: 3561: 3555: 3553: 3547: 3546: 3544: 3543: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3531: 3521: 3516: 3511: 3506: 3500: 3498: 3494: 3493: 3491: 3490: 3485: 3479: 3477: 3473: 3472: 3470: 3469: 3464: 3462:Prime Minister 3459: 3454: 3449: 3443: 3441: 3434: 3430: 3429: 3422: 3421: 3414: 3407: 3399: 3390: 3389: 3384: 3381: 3380: 3378: 3377: 3371: 3369: 3363: 3362: 3360: 3359: 3353: 3351: 3347: 3346: 3344: 3343: 3338: 3332: 3330: 3326: 3325: 3323: 3322: 3317: 3312: 3307: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3295: 3284: 3282: 3276: 3275: 3273: 3272: 3266: 3264: 3258: 3257: 3255: 3254: 3249: 3244: 3239: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3227: 3222: 3212: 3207: 3202: 3196: 3194: 3190: 3189: 3187: 3186: 3181: 3176: 3174:Prime Minister 3171: 3166: 3160: 3158: 3156:The Government 3152: 3151: 3149: 3148: 3143: 3138: 3133: 3128: 3123: 3118: 3113: 3108: 3102: 3100: 3094: 3093: 3091: 3090: 3085: 3080: 3075: 3070: 3064: 3062: 3058: 3057: 3050: 3047: 3046: 3039: 3038: 3031: 3024: 3016: 3010: 3009: 3003: 2986: 2980: 2967: 2961: 2939: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2911: 2893: 2869: 2866: 2864: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2853: 2830: 2824: 2805: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2788: 2774: 2764: 2754: 2742: 2725: 2715: 2712:House of Lords 2697: 2694: 2692: 2689: 2686: 2685: 2673: 2657: 2641: 2624: 2612: 2600: 2588: 2576: 2558: 2546: 2528: 2519: 2510: 2501: 2476: 2463: 2450: 2438: 2426: 2414: 2393: 2377: 2355: 2343: 2331: 2304: 2292: 2274: 2265: 2246: 2222: 2206: 2194: 2182: 2170: 2146: 2134: 2118: 2106: 2094: 2078: 2069: 2060: 2032:Chan Sek Keong 2023: 2007: 1995: 1983: 1971: 1959: 1947: 1935: 1915: 1899: 1889: 1877: 1861: 1849: 1833: 1824: 1812: 1796: 1776: 1764: 1749: 1734: 1717: 1694: 1679: 1663: 1647: 1633: 1624: 1612: 1595: 1576: 1572:House of Lords 1554: 1530: 1515: 1495: 1488: 1461: 1454: 1427: 1420: 1392: 1390:), Art. 18(9). 1372: 1371: 1369: 1366: 1340: 1339: 1331: 1278: 1275: 1234: 1231: 1163:Second Reading 1150: 1147: 1089: 1086: 1084: 1081: 1052: 1051: 1040: 1039: 1037: 1034: 1015: 1012: 949: 946: 922:Chan Sek Keong 815: 812: 807:Upper Tribunal 783:Upper Tribunal 774: 771: 683: 680: 678: 675: 616:House of Lords 583: 582: 579: 576: 569: 562: 559: 535:House of Lords 524: 521: 519: 516: 507:Alfred Denning 451: 450: 448: 445: 372:ouster clauses 355: 354: 352: 351: 344: 337: 329: 326: 325: 324: 323: 315: 314: 313:Related topics 310: 309: 308: 307: 302: 297: 289: 288: 282: 281: 280: 279: 274: 273: 272: 265:United Kingdom 262: 257: 252: 247: 239: 238: 232: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 222: 210: 205: 204: 203: 198: 193: 183: 178: 173: 165: 164: 157: 156: 155: 154: 147: 142: 141: 140: 133: 128: 121: 114: 102: 97: 92: 90:Justiciability 87: 82: 77: 69: 68: 64: 63: 47:ouster clauses 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4017: 4006: 4003: 4001: 3998: 3997: 3995: 3980: 3977: 3975: 3972: 3971: 3968: 3962: 3959: 3957: 3954: 3953: 3951: 3947: 3941: 3938: 3936: 3933: 3930: 3927: 3925: 3922: 3920: 3917: 3915: 3912: 3910: 3907: 3905: 3902: 3900: 3897: 3895: 3892: 3890: 3887: 3885: 3882: 3880: 3877: 3875: 3872: 3871: 3869: 3865: 3859: 3856: 3854: 3853:Charities Act 3851: 3849: 3846: 3845: 3843: 3841:Religious law 3839: 3833: 3830: 3828: 3825: 3824: 3822: 3820: 3816: 3810: 3809:Vandalism Act 3807: 3805: 3802: 3800: 3797: 3795: 3792: 3790: 3787: 3783: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3775: 3773: 3770: 3768: 3765: 3763: 3760: 3758: 3755: 3753: 3750: 3748: 3745: 3744: 3742: 3740: 3736: 3730: 3727: 3725: 3722: 3721: 3719: 3713: 3703: 3700: 3698: 3695: 3694: 3692: 3690: 3686: 3680: 3678: 3674: 3673: 3671: 3669:Irrationality 3667: 3661: 3658: 3656: 3653: 3651: 3648: 3646: 3643: 3642: 3640: 3638: 3634: 3628: 3625: 3623: 3620: 3618: 3615: 3614: 3612: 3608: 3605: 3603: 3599: 3594: 3580: 3577: 3575: 3572: 3570: 3567: 3565: 3562: 3560: 3557: 3556: 3554: 3552: 3548: 3542: 3539: 3535: 3532: 3530: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524:Supreme Court 3522: 3520: 3517: 3515: 3512: 3510: 3507: 3505: 3502: 3501: 3499: 3495: 3489: 3486: 3484: 3481: 3480: 3478: 3474: 3468: 3465: 3463: 3460: 3458: 3455: 3453: 3450: 3448: 3445: 3444: 3442: 3438: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3420: 3415: 3413: 3408: 3406: 3401: 3400: 3397: 3387: 3382: 3376: 3373: 3372: 3370: 3364: 3358: 3355: 3354: 3352: 3348: 3342: 3339: 3337: 3334: 3333: 3331: 3327: 3321: 3318: 3316: 3313: 3311: 3310:Chief Justice 3308: 3306: 3303: 3299: 3296: 3294: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288:Supreme Court 3286: 3285: 3283: 3281: 3280:The Judiciary 3277: 3271: 3268: 3267: 3265: 3259: 3253: 3250: 3248: 3245: 3243: 3240: 3238: 3235: 3231: 3228: 3226: 3223: 3221: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3213: 3211: 3208: 3206: 3203: 3201: 3198: 3197: 3195: 3191: 3185: 3182: 3180: 3177: 3175: 3172: 3170: 3167: 3165: 3162: 3161: 3159: 3157: 3153: 3147: 3146:Right to vote 3144: 3142: 3139: 3137: 3134: 3132: 3129: 3127: 3124: 3122: 3119: 3117: 3114: 3112: 3109: 3107: 3104: 3103: 3101: 3099: 3095: 3089: 3086: 3084: 3081: 3079: 3076: 3074: 3071: 3069: 3066: 3065: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3054: 3048: 3044: 3037: 3032: 3030: 3025: 3023: 3018: 3017: 3014: 3006: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2987: 2983: 2977: 2973: 2968: 2964: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2941: 2930: 2926: 2925: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2894: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2879: 2872: 2871: 2856: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2837: 2831: 2827: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2808: 2807: 2798: 2794: 2793: 2789: 2786: 2785:Supreme Court 2782: 2778: 2775: 2772: 2768: 2765: 2762: 2758: 2755: 2752: 2748: 2747: 2743: 2740: 2737: 2733: 2731: 2730: 2726: 2723: 2719: 2716: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2704: 2700: 2699: 2682: 2677: 2670: 2666: 2661: 2654: 2650: 2645: 2638: 2634: 2628: 2621: 2616: 2609: 2608:Yong Vui Kong 2604: 2597: 2592: 2585: 2580: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2562: 2555: 2550: 2543: 2539: 2538: 2532: 2523: 2514: 2505: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2480: 2473: 2467: 2460: 2454: 2447: 2446:Chng Suan Tze 2442: 2435: 2434:Chng Suan Tze 2430: 2423: 2422:Chng Suan Tze 2418: 2411: 2407: 2406: 2400: 2398: 2390: 2386: 2381: 2374: 2370: 2367: 2362: 2360: 2352: 2351:Chng Suan Tze 2347: 2340: 2339:Chng Suan Tze 2335: 2328: 2324: 2321: 2320: 2313: 2311: 2309: 2301: 2296: 2289: 2285: 2284: 2278: 2269: 2262: 2258: 2253: 2251: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2226: 2219: 2215: 2210: 2203: 2198: 2192: 2186: 2179: 2174: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2150: 2143: 2138: 2131: 2127: 2122: 2115: 2110: 2103: 2098: 2091: 2087: 2082: 2073: 2064: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2037: 2033: 2027: 2020: 2016: 2011: 2004: 1999: 1992: 1987: 1981: 1975: 1968: 1963: 1956: 1951: 1944: 1939: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1919: 1912: 1908: 1903: 1893: 1887: 1881: 1874: 1870: 1865: 1858: 1853: 1846: 1842: 1837: 1831:Cane, p. 242. 1828: 1821: 1820:Ex parte Page 1816: 1809: 1805: 1800: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1780: 1773: 1772:Ex parte Page 1768: 1761: 1756: 1754: 1746: 1741: 1739: 1731: 1727: 1721: 1714: 1713:Supreme Court 1710: 1706: 1701: 1699: 1691: 1690:Ex parte Page 1686: 1684: 1676: 1672: 1667: 1660: 1656: 1651: 1645:Cane, p. 241. 1642: 1640: 1638: 1631:Cane, p. 240. 1628: 1621: 1616: 1609: 1604: 1602: 1600: 1592: 1590:. c. 12 (UK)) 1589: 1585: 1580: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1564: 1558: 1551: 1550:Privy Council 1547: 1543: 1537: 1535: 1527: 1522: 1520: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1499: 1491: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1470: 1468: 1466: 1457: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1437: 1431: 1423: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1396: 1389: 1385: 1380: 1378: 1373: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1353:Chng Suan Tze 1350: 1346: 1345:Chng Suan Tze 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1317: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1304: 1303:Chng Suan Tze 1299: 1298:Chng Suan Tze 1295: 1294:Chng Suan Tze 1291: 1290: 1285: 1284:Chng Suan Tze 1274: 1271: 1267: 1262: 1256: 1254: 1250: 1249:Chng Suan Tze 1246: 1242: 1241: 1230: 1228: 1223: 1217: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1184: 1183:Singapore law 1180: 1175: 1171: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1146: 1144: 1140: 1139:Article 12(1) 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1123: 1118: 1113: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1080: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1033: 1031: 1026: 1022: 1010: 1007: 1003: 997: 995: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 963: 959: 954: 945: 942: 937: 936: 931: 927: 923: 919: 918:School of Law 916: 910: 907: 900: 898: 894: 888: 885: 881: 877: 868: 864: 859: 855: 852: 848: 843: 837: 832: 829: 825: 821: 811: 808: 804: 800: 796: 788: 784: 779: 770: 768: 763: 762:ex parte Page 757: 754: 750: 746: 742: 738: 734: 730: 726: 725:Geoffrey Lane 722: 717: 714: 710: 709:ex parte Page 706: 705: 700: 696: 695:ex parte Page 691: 689: 674: 672: 671: 665: 661: 657: 653: 649: 644: 642: 638: 634: 630: 625: 617: 613: 609: 605: 604:ex parte Page 601: 596: 592: 589: 580: 577: 574: 570: 567: 563: 560: 557: 553: 552: 551: 547: 544: 540: 536: 532: 531: 515: 512: 508: 505: 501: 497: 493: 489: 484: 481: 477: 472: 469: 465: 464:ouster clause 458: 444: 441: 440:Chng Suan Tze 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 408: 403: 398: 396: 391: 389: 385: 381: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 350: 345: 343: 338: 336: 331: 330: 328: 327: 322: 319: 318: 317: 316: 312: 311: 306: 303: 301: 298: 296: 293: 292: 291: 290: 284: 283: 278: 277:United States 275: 271: 268: 267: 266: 263: 261: 258: 256: 253: 251: 248: 246: 243: 242: 241: 240: 234: 233: 226: 223: 221: 220: 216: 215: 214: 211: 209: 206: 202: 199: 197: 194: 192: 189: 188: 187: 184: 182: 179: 177: 174: 172: 169: 168: 167: 166: 163: 159: 158: 153: 152: 148: 146: 143: 139: 138: 134: 132: 129: 127: 126: 122: 120: 119: 118:Habeas corpus 115: 113: 112: 108: 107: 106: 103: 101: 100:Ouster clause 98: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 81: 78: 76: 73: 72: 71: 70: 66: 65: 62: 59: 58: 52: 48: 44: 40: 36: 32: 28: 23: 19: 3799:Sedition Act 3739:Criminal law 3676: 3616: 3564:Human rights 3551:Constitution 3541:State Courts 3305:State Courts 3230:By-elections 3220:Presidential 3184:The Reserves 3067: 3051: 2990: 2971: 2948: 2928: 2922: 2918: 2908:(3): 274–282 2905: 2901: 2887: 2883: 2877: 2835: 2811: 2790: 2776: 2766: 2761:Teo Soh Lung 2760: 2756: 2751:Teo Soh Lung 2750: 2744: 2727: 2724:(Singapore). 2717: 2701: 2680: 2676: 2664: 2660: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2639:) ("CLTPA"). 2627: 2619: 2615: 2607: 2603: 2596:Teo Soh Lung 2595: 2591: 2584:Teo Soh Lung 2583: 2579: 2572:Teo Soh Lung 2571: 2565: 2561: 2554:Teo Soh Lung 2553: 2549: 2542:Teo Soh Lung 2541: 2535: 2531: 2522: 2513: 2504: 2496: 2485:S. Jayakumar 2479: 2466: 2453: 2445: 2441: 2433: 2429: 2421: 2417: 2403: 2384: 2380: 2373:the original 2365: 2350: 2346: 2338: 2334: 2327:the original 2317: 2299: 2295: 2281: 2277: 2268: 2244:(Singapore). 2233: 2229: 2225: 2213: 2209: 2201: 2197: 2185: 2177: 2173: 2165: 2153: 2149: 2141: 2137: 2125: 2121: 2113: 2109: 2101: 2097: 2085: 2081: 2072: 2063: 2051:the original 2046: 2042: 2026: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2002: 1998: 1990: 1986: 1974: 1966: 1962: 1954: 1950: 1942: 1938: 1922: 1918: 1906: 1902: 1892: 1880: 1875:(Singapore). 1868: 1864: 1856: 1852: 1836: 1827: 1819: 1815: 1803: 1799: 1790:, Q.B. 56, 1783: 1779: 1771: 1767: 1759: 1744: 1729: 1720: 1704: 1689: 1670: 1666: 1654: 1650: 1627: 1619: 1615: 1607: 1579: 1561: 1557: 1541: 1525: 1502: 1498: 1475: 1440: 1430: 1402: 1395: 1364:good order. 1360: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1342: 1334: 1326: 1319: 1309: 1307: 1302: 1297: 1293: 1287: 1283: 1280: 1270:Lee Mau Seng 1269: 1266:Lee Mau Seng 1265: 1261:Lee Mau Seng 1260: 1257: 1248: 1244: 1238: 1236: 1227:Lee Mau Seng 1226: 1222:Lee Mau Seng 1221: 1218: 1214: 1201:Constitution 1170:S. Jayakumar 1159:Lee Mau Seng 1158: 1152: 1143:Constitution 1134: 1130: 1126: 1120: 1114: 1091: 1064: 1058: 1055: 1044: 1029: 1020: 1017: 1006:ex p. Ostler 1005: 1001: 999: 993: 986:Lord Denning 981: 973: 969: 957: 955: 951: 935:obiter dicta 933: 929: 925: 912: 905: 902: 899:as follows: 896: 892: 889: 875: 873: 850: 846: 841: 839: 834: 827: 823: 817: 798: 794: 792: 761: 758: 748: 745:Lord Diplock 740: 736: 728: 718: 708: 702: 694: 692: 687: 685: 668: 663: 655: 650:(2011). The 647: 645: 640: 639:referred to 632: 628: 623: 621: 603: 587: 584: 548: 538: 528: 526: 523:General rule 499: 485: 473: 461: 455: 439: 410:(1988), the 405: 399: 392: 359: 358: 260:South Africa 217: 160:Grounds for 149: 137:Quo warranto 135: 123: 116: 109: 18: 3350:Citizenship 3083:Rule of law 2945:Craig, P P. 2915:Wade, H W R 2843:, pp. 2804:Other works 2316:Applied in 2162:Simon Brown 1540:Applied in 1436:Thio Li-ann 1410:, pp. 976:(1976) the 753:presumption 704:ultra vires 670:prima facie 518:UK position 480:rule of law 476:Thio Li-ann 196:Due process 151:Ultra vires 131:Prohibition 3994:Categories 3931:(Repealed) 3819:Family law 3777:Penal Code 3717:resolution 3677:Wednesbury 3637:Illegality 3534:High Court 3488:Parliament 3452:Government 3298:High Court 3205:Parliament 3141:Article 16 3136:Article 15 3131:Article 14 3126:Article 13 3121:Article 12 3116:Article 11 3111:Article 10 2951:, Oxford: 2722:High Court 2691:References 2483:Prof. 2019:Stansfield 2003:Stansfield 1991:Stansfield 1955:Yee Yut Ee 1943:Yee Yut Ee 1911:High Court 1873:High Court 1845:2007 c. 15 1726:Lord Dyson 1197:Parliament 1174:Government 1155:Parliament 1073:irrational 1009:certainty. 926:Stansfield 909:effective. 867:High Court 820:High Court 677:Exceptions 660:Lord Dyson 573:good faith 511:certiorari 492:common law 388:High Court 364:Parliament 219:Wednesbury 145:Rulemaking 111:Certiorari 35:Parliament 25:A sign at 3949:Procedure 3559:Elections 3483:President 3447:President 3215:Elections 3200:President 3164:President 3106:Article 9 2931:: 198–212 2919:Anisminic 2890:: 285–292 2763:(C.A.)"). 2753:(H.C.)"). 2574:(C.A.)"). 2544:(H.C.)"). 2116:, p. 765. 2104:, p. 751. 1822:, p. 703. 1774:, p. 702. 1692:, p. 701. 1622:, p. 171. 1620:Anisminic 1610:, p. 170. 1608:Anisminic 1588:14 Geo. 6 1528:, p. 583. 1301:reversed 1172:said the 1119:decision 1106:President 1002:Anisminic 970:Anisminic 966:Lord Reid 930:Anisminic 893:Anisminic 870:position. 851:Anisminic 847:Anisminic 842:Anisminic 828:Anisminic 799:Anisminic 749:Anisminic 688:Anisminic 664:Anisminic 656:Anisminic 633:Anisminic 624:Anisminic 588:Anisminic 556:bad faith 543:Lord Reid 539:Anisminic 424:President 395:bad faith 368:Singapore 255:Singapore 245:Australia 3622:Remedies 3073:Remedies 2868:Articles 2230:Teng Fuh 2202:Galstaun 1203:and the 996:(1992): 980:applied 822:case of 502:(1957), 426:and the 300:Mongolia 270:Scotland 125:Mandamus 51:statutes 3610:General 3457:Cabinet 3225:General 3210:Speaker 3169:Cabinet 2921:Case", 2845:392–437 2491:), 1253:Cabinet 1141:of the 1104:if the 1069:illegal 713:charter 699:visitor 608:visitor 468:statute 305:Ukraine 3001: 2978: 2959: 2851: 2822: 2635: ( 2495:, 2487: ( 2259: ( 1847:, UK). 1486: 1452: 1418: 1386: ( 1245:obiter 1135:obiter 1063:("the 988:, the 614:, the 418: ( 250:Canada 39:courts 3867:Other 2938:Books 2795: 2787:(UK). 2779: 2769: 2714:(UK). 2706: 2696:Cases 2667: 2408: 2387: 2286: 2236: 2216: 2128: 2114:Smith 2102:Smith 2088: 2054:(PDF) 2039:(PDF) 1925: 1806: 1786: 1715:(UK). 1707: 1673: 1657: 1574:(UK). 1566: 1544: 1505: 1368:Notes 982:Smith 972:, in 932:were 466:in a 404:. In 374:into 295:China 3697:Bias 2999:ISBN 2976:ISBN 2957:ISBN 2849:ISBN 2820:ISBN 2300:GCHQ 1857:Cart 1760:Cart 1745:Cart 1730:Cart 1484:ISBN 1450:ISBN 1416:ISBN 1361:GCHQ 1333:(b) 1325:(a) 1127:GCHQ 1065:GCHQ 861:The 818:The 795:Cart 2164:in 1728:in 1308:In 1100:to 1075:or 956:In 906:per 874:In 735:in 727:in 462:An 366:of 3996:: 2929:85 2927:, 2906:28 2904:, 2900:, 2888:22 2886:, 2882:, 2847:, 2396:^ 2358:^ 2307:^ 2249:^ 2047:22 2045:, 2041:, 1752:^ 1737:^ 1697:^ 1682:^ 1636:^ 1598:^ 1533:^ 1518:^ 1464:^ 1414:, 1376:^ 1330:or 1079:. 1071:, 33:. 3418:e 3411:t 3404:v 3035:e 3028:t 3021:v 3008:. 2985:. 2966:. 2933:. 2910:. 2892:. 2880:" 2858:. 2829:. 2058:. 1843:( 1586:( 1493:. 1459:. 1425:. 568:. 558:. 348:e 341:t 334:v 53:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law

Index