Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Ltd. (2012), [79] the High Court identified various factors to determine if the decision by Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Ltd. ("SGX-ST") to reprimand a director of a company listed on the Singapore Exchange was properly characterized as a public function. These factors include the extent to which ...
The decision of a Singapore public authority was found to be Wednesbury unreasonable in Mir Hassan bin Abdul Rahman v Attorney-General (2009). [135] The case concerned a decision of the Strata Titles Board (STB) not to reschedule a hearing date for the approval of a condominium's sale and purchase agreement. The applicants, who were ...
In Lines International Holding (S) Pte. Ltd. v. Singapore Tourist Promotion Board (1997), [146] the plaintiff, a cruise operator, claimed that the Singapore Tourism Promotion Board and the Port of Singapore Authority had committed the tort by denying it berths for its ship conducting "cruises to nowhere" on which the main activity was gambling ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Fettering of discretion by a public authority is one of the grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law.It is regarded as a form of illegality.An applicant may challenge a decision by an authority on the basis that it has either rigidly adhered to a policy it has formulated, or has wrongfully delegated the exercise of its statutory powers to another body.
Spandeck Engineering v Defence Science and Technology Agency [2007] SGCA 37 was a landmark decision in Singapore law. [1] [2] It established a new framework for establishing a duty of care, differentiating the Singaporean law of tort from past English common law precedent such as Caparo v Dickman and Anns v Merton, whilst also allowing for claims in pure economic loss, which are generally not ...
The Supreme Court of Singapore is the nation's superior court of record. [16] It is superior in the sense that its jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal cases is unlimited compared to the Subordinate Courts of Singapore, and it hears appeals from lower courts.
In the Singapore High Court case of Pillay, [27] the Public Prosecutor appealed against a magistrate's decision that rules requiring people to pay a fee for a permit before driving motor vehicles into an area of the city designated as the "restricted zone" were ultra vires section 90(1) of the Road Traffic Act, [28] the relevant part of which ...