Remedies in Singapore administrative law

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: 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.

778: 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 ...". 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. 975: 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.

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

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

5002: 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

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

5266: 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

4940: 4992: 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. 164: 5036: 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 5099: 5241: 4866: 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

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

5231: 4974: 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.

5221: 4192: 1674: 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.

5276: 4861: 5236: 4964: 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:

5023: 340: 4476: 2004: 5326: 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 5141: 5129: 4984: 4764: 4373: 2696: 1557: 1085: 1073: 441: 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

4584: 2919: 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: 5136: 5071: 4921: 4392: 4328: 2395: 1799: 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

932: 855: 20: 1145: 5352: 5308: 5049: 5007: 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

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);

4997: 3927: 1469: 1155: 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. 5347: 5282: 4733: 4711: 4688: 4544: 4521: 4252: 4211: 3760: 3583: 2786: 2429: 1930: 1861: 1748: 1473: 1449: 1368: 1007: 979: 5195: 2292: 2226: 1112: 887: 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.

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: 2609: 4555: 3797: 2662: 1245:(2005), decided on that date, the High Court held that instead of instituting the action against the Minister for Home Affairs and the 5246: 4856: 4651: 4600: 2842: 1904: 1246: 3916: 5261: 5104: 5044: 4916: 4045: 3480: 3347: 2723: 1090: 258: 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 3590: 5205: 3155: 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

333: 270: 253: 5287: 5109: 4949: 1573:

Before May 2011, it was not possible to apply for prerogative orders and declarations in the same set of legal proceedings. In

1437: 1413: 1102:

to be issued, the appellants appealed against the ruling. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the narrow ground that the

554: 497: 396: 248: 27: 2614:

The Laws of England: Being a Complete Statement of the Whole Law of England: Crown Proceedings to Deeds and Other Instruments

5271: 4757: 293: 5179: 4675:

Cane, Peter (1997), "The Constitutional Basis of Judicial Remedies in Public Law", in Leyland, Peter; Woods, Terry (eds.),

876:

unlawful act. Like a quashing order, a prohibiting order is used to help maintain good standards of public administration.

4814: 4004: 2884: 1501: 1230: 1205: 1027: 819: 771: 238: 4034: 5174: 5151: 4876: 4851: 4362: 1722: 1651: 983: 758:

directing the Commissioner to hear the appeal. Relying on the above case, the High Court held that it could not grant a

529: 298: 1694:

If a claimant establishes that a public authority's wrongful action amounts to a tort, he or she may be able to obtain

1138:

Judges to inquire into the Truth of Facts contained in Return. Judge to bail on Recognizance to appear in Term, &c.

4926: 4809: 3122: 1445: 1409: 930:

A person seeking to obtain a prohibiting order must demonstrate that he or she has a sufficient interest to do so. In

326: 288: 243: 212: 1204:

Both nationals and non-nationals of a jurisdiction may apply for orders for review of detention. In the UK context,

5119: 5076: 4871: 1392: 1006:

agreements with Singapore banks or Singapore branches of foreign banks on behalf of its offshore subsidiaries. The

656: 32: 5256: 5156: 5086: 4911: 4898: 4888: 4750: 2806: 2793:

A court officer's indorsement on an instrument brought back to the court, reporting what the officer did or found

2768: 2413: 2001: 1077: 990:

amounted only to advice, and so technically the Comptroller had taken no legal action that could be subject to a

937: 751: 510: 445: 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.

5321: 5303: 5146: 5114: 4721: 3744: 1184: 823: 782: 541: 263: 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

3040:, pp. 110–111. Lord Atkin's dissenting opinion was subsequently accepted as correct by the House of Lords in 986:

held that a letter containing a determination by the Comptroller of Income Tax that a company was subject to

5166: 4881: 4835: 4799: 4531:

Pinsler, Jeffrey, ed. (2005), "Order 53: Application for Order of Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, etc.",

4513: 4314: 4244: 3461: 2812: 2643: 2617: 2421: 1849: 1759: 1740: 1679: 1103: 790: 777: 766:

directing him to "consider and determine the application of the applicants according to law". Similarly, in

525: 521: 501: 416: 408: 404: 44: 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.",

1233:. This rule applies to judicial review proceedings in which prerogative orders or declarations are sought. 852:

R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd.

5124: 4906: 4830: 4794: 4335:

Khera v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Khawaja v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

4027: 3849: 2976: 2870:

Khera v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Khawaja v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

2704: 1561: 1214:

Khera v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Khawaja v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

1130: 1107: 419:, and at its fullest may involve quashing an action or decision and ordering that it be redone or remade. 174: 169: 78: 770:(2009), the High Court held that the applicant should not have asked for a mandatory order requiring the 3779: 3020: 2246: 2242: 1541: 1405: 1401: 1360: 701:

The amendment of the provision removed a specific reference to the High Court's power to issue writs of

218: 201: 73: 1453: 1125:

In the course of its judgment, the Court of Appeal noted that at common law if the return to a writ of

1606:

is an equitable private law remedy that restrains a public body from doing an act that is wrongful or

5251: 4804: 4605: 4589: 1950:), which requires the prerogative orders to be referred to by their modern names in all written laws. 1417: 811: 800: 595: 400: 384: 68: 707:, a remedy used to challenge a person's right to hold public office. There are no reported cases of 5226: 1270: 1167: 1031: 579: 368: 194: 124: 5200: 3015: 2778: 1640: 1309: 1003: 467:. In place of an injunction, the Court may make a declaration concerning the parties' rights. At 314: 179: 54: 4703: 4203: 3752: 1853: 1841: 1284:

The test for whether leave should be granted to an applicant was expressed by the High Court in

2954:

Victor Yeo (April 1994), "Application of English Law Act 1993: A Step in the Weaning Process",

415:. The Court's power to review a law or an official act of a government official is part of its 5094: 4729: 4707: 4684: 4540: 4517: 4384: 4248: 4207: 3990:

ROC, O. 53, rr. 1(1)(a) and (b), inserted by the Rules of Court (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2011 (

3756: 2782: 2621: 2425: 2329: 1926: 1857: 1744: 1683: 1444:

racial nationalist political party, who wanted to hold an election meeting in a hall owned by

1429: 1421: 1356: 901: 896: 815: 786: 651: 4064: 4053: 3783: 4773: 4680: 4628: 4268: 3794: 2774: 1695: 1176: 957:

When the case was appealed, the sufficient interest test was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

599: 569: 388: 358: 206: 98: 40: 3457: 2839: 4071: 4060: 4049: 4038: 3998: 3931: 3801: 3790: 3594: 3133: 2983: 2846: 2764: 2711: 2008: 1497: 1489: 1488:(1999), Salem, a citizen of Libya, was granted temporary admission to the UK to pursue an 1477: 1321: 1011: 987: 544:. The Court noted that this jurisdiction had "existed historically at common law" and "is 514: 412: 184: 155: 88: 36: 4281: 4042: 2999: 1520:(1977), which held that a plaintiff could not be granted a declaration unless he or she: 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 4640:

Oliver, Dawn (January 2002), "Public Law Procedures and Remedies – Do We Need Them?",

4506: 4433: 3587: 3356: 3247: 3160: 2075: 1654:. To successfully make out the tort, a claimant must establish the following elements: 839: 83: 3299: 1565:

The Court did not discuss the issue of standing in the context of administrative law.

5341: 4423: 1900: 1718: 1465: 1117: 590: 379: 111: 93: 4289: 399:

is the branch of law that enables a person to challenge an exercise of power by the

4632: 4338: 4324: 4273: 3978: 3686: 3622: 3045: 3025: 2910: 2873: 2210: 1795: 1659: 1236:

The minister charged with responsibility for the Act is required to publish in the

1163: 1002:(2010), the respondent, a locally incorporated company, had arranged to enter into 703: 505: 130: 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

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

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

4619:

Kolinsky, Daniel (December 1999), "Advisory Declarations: Recent Developments",

3912: 1644: 1493: 1385: 1299: 1229:

department (if any) is appropriate, proceedings should be commenced against the

967: 883: 460: 432: 425: 189: 144: 4012: 1665:

it is foreseeable that the claimant would be harmed in some way by the act; and

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

4536: 4193:

Lines International Holding (S) Pte. Ltd. v. Singapore Tourist Promotion Board

4031: 1922: 1675:

Lines International Holding (S) Pte. Ltd. v. Singapore Tourist Promotion Board

1603: 1381: 1197:

he or she is merely under some other form of restriction such as being out on

991: 584: 537: 468: 456: 373: 138: 104: 2625: 459:

against the Government or one of its officers. An injunction is an equitable

1441: 1397: 762:

in such terms. Instead, it quashed the Commissioner's decision and issued a

643: 392: 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. 1650:

A special tort that applies only against public authorities is the tort of

1106:

had not adduced sufficient evidence to discharge its burden of proving the

974: 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. 2897: 1880:

Peter Leyland; Gordon Anthony (2009), "Introduction to Judicial Review",

1631: 1260: 795: 574: 476: 363: 118: 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: 1627: 1540:

is regarded by some scholars as more consistent with rule 40.20 of the

1505: 1265: 1094: 472: 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 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: 909: 905: 4601:"Judicial Review of Administrative Action by the Prerogative Orders" 4052:, supplemented by the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2000 ( 3853: 2975:, S.L.R.(R.) 135 at 145, para. 17, H.C. (Singapore), archived from 1947: 4742: 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). 1420:

that the candidate had a legal right to do so, did not amount to a

4556:"Habeas Corpus and Preventive Detention in Singapore and Malaysia" 4122:

The reference to judicial review proceedings in the definition of

2663:"Habeas Corpus and Preventive Detention in Singapore and Malaysia" 1391: 1144: 973: 776: 689:(d) an Order for Review of Detention (formerly known as a writ of 26: 4139:

in s. 27 of the Act did not include judicial review proceedings (

3500: 3498: 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

1635: 1583:

Yip Kok Seng v. Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board

1486:

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Salem

1198: 1115:

could make detention orders against them. However, in a lengthy

647: 480: 4746: 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 4404:

Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Minister for Information and the Arts

4393:

Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Minister for Information and the Arts

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 ( 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: 1678:(1997), the plaintiff, a cruise operator, claimed that the 1468:

were brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of members of the

1416:

by-election candidate to use the hall, while contrary to a

606:

any prejudicial delay by the claimant in bringing the case;

568:

The remedies available in a judicial review action are the

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

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.

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.

5296: 5277:

Third-Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Act 2015

5214: 5188: 5165: 5085: 5062: 5035: 5016: 4983: 4957: 4948: 4897: 4844: 4823: 4787: 4780: 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 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 1968: 1966: 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 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 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). 1662:, or while knowing that it had no power to act; 1522: 1290: 1286:Lai Swee Lin Linda v. Public Service Commission 1189: 1135: 1065: 1040: 946: 914: 735: 665: 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). 1448:. Despite being required by provisions of the 5237:Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act 4758: 4728:(4th ed.), London: Sweet & Maxwell, 3715:Re S (Hospital Patient: Court's Jurisdiction) 3574:, 1 WLR 415, C.A. (England & Wales). 1875: 1873: 1534:Re S (Hospital Patient: Court's Jurisdiction) 789:, photographed in January 2012. In 1985, the 334: 8: 3362:because there were factual disputes present. 3163:, S.L.R.(R.) 582, H.C. (Singapore). 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 3544:Webster v. Southwark London Borough Council 3156:Chee Siok Chin v. Minister for Home Affairs 2861: 2859: 2857: 2855: 2088: 2086: 2084: 1434:Webster v. Southwark London Borough Council 1243:Chee Siok Chin v. Minister for Home Affairs 4954: 4784: 4765: 4751: 4743: 4374:Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs 3339:Pang Cheng Suan v. Commissioner for Labour 3250: at paras. 7–21, H.C. (Singapore). 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 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: 50: 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 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 1899: (1759) 2 Burr. 834 at 855–856, 1848:(6th ed.), Oxford; New York, N.Y.: 1181:Eshugbayi Eleko v. Government of Nigeria 682:(c) a Quashing Order (formerly known as 520:Judicial review, the means by which the 21:Remedies in Singapore constitutional law 5309:Integrated Electronic Litigation System 5100:Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 4430:Chai Chwan v. Singapore Medical Council 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, 1707: 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 306: 278: 228: 153: 60: 53: 5242:Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 5003:Relevant and irrelevant considerations 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 4650:Tan, John Chor-Yong (December 1960), 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 471:, there is no general right to claim 7: 5196:Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 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 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 2915:Application of English Law Act 1993 2896:The words represented by the first 2876:, A.C. 74 at 110, H.L. (UK) (" 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 1948:Cap. 1, 2002 Rev. Ed. 1208:disagreed with the suggestion that 744:Re San Development Co's Application 5247:Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 5008:Substantive legitimate expectation 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 14: 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 4026:Supreme Court Act 1981 (now the 3838:Tan Eng Hong v. Attorney-General 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, 2523:1 S.L.R. 273, H.C. (Singapore). 1643:, damages, equitable relief or 1098:to the High Court for writs of 1022:held that to have standing for 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 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 1882:Textbook on Administrative Law 1846:Textbook on Administrative Law 1639:"relevant relief", that is, a 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 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 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 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, 1569:Procedure for declarations 657:English administrative law 33:Supreme Court of Singapore 18: 5317: 5257:Payment Services Act 2019 4937: 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: 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. 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 1395: 1148: 1091:Internal Security Act 1049:Chan Hiang Leng Colin 1020:Chan Hiang Leng Colin 977: 884:Kent Police Authority 854:(1981), in which the 780: 733:(1902), it was held: 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: 4943: 4815:Attorney-General 4788:Executive branch 4785: 4774:Law of Singapore 4767: 4760: 4753: 4744: 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: 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: 4720: 4714: 4697: 4691: 4674: 4671: 4649: 4639: 4621:Judicial Review 4618: 4598: 4583: 4580: 4575: 4573:Further reading 4553: 4547: 4530: 4524: 4503: 4500: 4465: 4363:Court of Appeal 4311:Re Onkar Shrian 4307: 4302: 4297: 4296: 4266: 4262: 4255: 4247:, p. 293, 4245:Clarendon Press 4238: 4237: 4233: 4225: 4221: 4214: 4197: 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: 4002: 3999:Wayback Machine 3989: 3985: 3969: 3965: 3957: 3950: 3940: 3938: 3934: 3919: 3911: 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, 3742: 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: 2953: 2950: 2946: 2937: 2933: 2909: 2908: 2904: 2895: 2891: 2864: 2853: 2847:Wayback Machine 2837: 2833: 2818: 2816: 2815:, December 2011 2797: 2789: 2765:Bryan A. Garner 2763: 2762: 2758: 2750: 2746: 2738: 2734: 2722: 2718: 2712:Wayback Machine 2694: 2690: 2680: 2678: 2660: 2659: 2655: 2637: 2633: 2608: 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 2412: 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: 2046: 2045: 2041: 2029:, prohibition, 2019: 2015: 2009:Wayback Machine 1999: 1992: 1987: 1980: 1971: 1964: 1958: 1954: 1944: 1940: 1933: 1916: 1915: 1911: 1894: 1890: 1879: 1878: 1871: 1864: 1839: 1838: 1834: 1826: 1822: 1813: 1806: 1786: 1782: 1774: 1770: 1751: 1741:Clarendon Press 1734: 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: 5364: 5356: 5355: 5350: 5340: 5339: 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: 4772: 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: 13: 10: 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: 4668: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4648: 4643: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4626: 4622: 4617: 4612: 4608: 4607: 4602: 4597: 4592: 4591: 4586: 4582: 4581: 4577: 4572: 4565: 4561: 4557: 4552: 4548: 4542: 4538: 4535:, Singapore: 4534: 4529: 4525: 4519: 4515: 4510: 4509: 4502: 4501: 4497: 4492: 4488: 4485: 4481: 4478: 4474: 4471: 4467: 4466: 4462: 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: 4304: 4299: 4291: 4287: 4283: 4279: 4275: 4271: 4270: 4264: 4261: 4256: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4235: 4232: 4228: 4223: 4220: 4215: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4195: 4194: 4188: 4186: 4182: 4176: 4173: 4167: 4164: 4158: 4155: 4149: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4125: 4119: 4116: 4110: 4107: 4101: 4098: 4094: 4089: 4086: 4080: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4033: 4029: 4023: 4020: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4000: 3996: 3993: 3987: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3967: 3964: 3960: 3955: 3953: 3949: 3933: 3929: 3925: 3918: 3914: 3909: 3904: 3901: 3895: 3892: 3886: 3883: 3879: 3874: 3871: 3867: 3862: 3859: 3855: 3851: 3846: 3843: 3839: 3834: 3831: 3827: 3822: 3819: 3815: 3810: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3796: 3792: 3788: 3785: 3781: 3776: 3773: 3769: 3764: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3739: 3736: 3732: 3728: 3723: 3720: 3716: 3711: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3695: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3679: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3655: 3652: 3648: 3643: 3640: 3636: 3631: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3615: 3612: 3608: 3603: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3589: 3585: 3580: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3564: 3561: 3557: 3552: 3549: 3545: 3540: 3537: 3533: 3527: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3510: 3507: 3501: 3499: 3495: 3489: 3486: 3482: 3479: 3475: 3470: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3446: 3443: 3437: 3434: 3430: 3425: 3422: 3416: 3413: 3407: 3404: 3398: 3395: 3391: 3386: 3383: 3377: 3374: 3368: 3365: 3361: 3358: 3357:distinguished 3354: 3350: 3349: 3344: 3340: 3335: 3332: 3326: 3323: 3317: 3314: 3308: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3284: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3268: 3265: 3261: 3256: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3240: 3237: 3231: 3228: 3222: 3219: 3213: 3210: 3204: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3184: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3169: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3157: 3151: 3148: 3142: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3128: 3124: 3121:Probably the 3118: 3115: 3109: 3106: 3102: 3096: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3081: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3066: 3063: 3059: 3054: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3022: 3017: 3013: 3008: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2992: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2978: 2974: 2971: 2966: 2963: 2957: 2948: 2945: 2941: 2935: 2932: 2926: 2922: 2921: 2916: 2912: 2906: 2903: 2899: 2893: 2890: 2886: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2866:Chng Suan Tze 2862: 2860: 2858: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2841: 2835: 2832: 2827: 2814: 2810: 2809: 2804: 2802: 2794: 2790: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2771: 2766: 2760: 2757: 2753: 2752:Chng Suan Tze 2748: 2745: 2741: 2740:Chng Suan Tze 2736: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2720: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2706: 2702: 2699: 2698: 2692: 2689: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2657: 2654: 2649: 2648:Habeas corpus 2646:(Malaysia): " 2645: 2641: 2635: 2632: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2606: 2601: 2598: 2594: 2589: 2586: 2582: 2577: 2574: 2570: 2565: 2562: 2558: 2553: 2550: 2546: 2541: 2538: 2534: 2529: 2526: 2522: 2517: 2514: 2510: 2505: 2502: 2498: 2492: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2476: 2474: 2470: 2464: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2448: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2433: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2409: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2397: 2391: 2388: 2384: 2379: 2376: 2372: 2367: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2351: 2348: 2344: 2339: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2325: 2322: 2318: 2313: 2310: 2306: 2301: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2285: 2282: 2276: 2273: 2269: 2264: 2261: 2255: 2252: 2248: 2247:Queen's Bench 2244: 2240: 2235: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2219: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2203: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2187: 2184: 2180: 2175: 2172: 2168: 2162: 2159: 2155: 2150: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2134: 2131: 2127: 2122: 2119: 2115: 2109: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2089: 2087: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2068: 2065: 2059: 2056: 2050: 2043: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2023:habeas corpus 2017: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2003: 1997: 1995: 1991: 1985: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1969: 1967: 1963: 1956: 1953: 1949: 1942: 1939: 1934: 1928: 1924: 1921:, Singapore: 1920: 1913: 1910: 1906: 1903: at 599, 1902: 1898: 1892: 1889: 1883: 1876: 1874: 1870: 1865: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1836: 1833: 1829: 1824: 1821: 1817: 1811: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1784: 1781: 1777: 1772: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1752: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1731: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1711: 1708: 1701: 1699: 1697: 1692: 1690: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1676: 1667: 1664: 1661: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1653: 1648: 1646: 1642: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1621: 1619: 1617: 1611: 1609: 1605: 1597: 1592: 1590: 1586: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1568: 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: 1374: 1372: 1370: 1367: 1362: 1358: 1353: 1348: 1345: 1339: 1336: 1327: 1325: 1323: 1318: 1315: 1311: 1304: 1302: 1301: 1295: 1289: 1287: 1282: 1280: 1274: 1272: 1267: 1263: 1262: 1252: 1250: 1248: 1244: 1239: 1234: 1232: 1223: 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: 1054: 1052: 1050: 1044: 1039: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1016: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 993: 989: 985: 981: 976: 972: 970: 969: 960: 958: 954: 951: 945: 943: 939: 935: 934: 928: 923: 920: 913: 911: 907: 903: 899: 898: 892: 889: 885: 881: 877: 870: 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: 719: 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: 625: 620: 617: 614: 611: 608: 605: 604: 603: 601: 597: 593: 592: 591:habeas corpus 587: 586: 581: 577: 576: 571: 563: 561: 558: 556: 552: 547: 543: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 518: 516: 512: 507: 504:by providing 503: 499: 491: 486: 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: 305: 300: 297: 295: 292: 290: 287: 286: 285: 284: 277: 272: 271:United States 269: 265: 262: 261: 260: 257: 255: 252: 250: 247: 245: 242: 240: 237: 236: 235: 234: 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: 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: 59: 56: 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.

Knowledge (XXG)

Remedies in Singapore administrative law

Index