Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The State Courts Building, also known as The Octagon and formerly as the Subordinate Courts Building, is a courthouse on Upper Cross Street in Singapore. Completed in 1975, the building housed the State Courts of Singapore (formerly the Subordinates Courts of Singapore) until 2019, when the courts moved into the State Courts Towers .
In the absence of a pronouncement by the Singapore courts on this matter, the English decision in R. v. Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Gunning (1985) [214] is useful as Hodgson J. laid out the basic requirements of a legal duty to consult: (1) consultation must be at a time when proposals are at a formative stage; (2) the proposer must ...
The State Courts of Singapore (formerly the Subordinate Courts) [1] is one of the three categories of courts in Singapore, the other categories being the Supreme Court and Family Justice Courts. The State Courts comprise the District and Magistrate Courts—both of which oversee civil and criminal matters—as well as specialised courts such as ...
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 ...
Under the Constitution of Singapore, the judicial system of Singapore is divided into the Supreme Court which comprises the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and the subordinate courts, namely the State Courts and Family Justice Courts. Singapore practices the common law legal system, where the decisions of higher courts constitute binding ...
A judge is generally not bound by previous decisions made by other judges in courts of the same level. Thus, a judge hearing a High Court case need not follow previous High Court decisions. Nonetheless, courts generally do so as a matter of comity, unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise. As the final appellate court in Singapore, the ...
In the case of Yeap Wai Kong v. 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 ...
The House of Lords modified its holding in Zamir in the later decision Khera v. Secretary of State for Home Department; Khawaja v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ("Khawaja", 1983). [18] The facts of this case, which involved two separate appellants, were similar to those of Zamir. Khera had entered the country by allegedly deceiving ...