Jump to content

User:Kzem.smu/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Kzem.smu

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 220.255.1.150 (talk) at 03:01, 4 October 2012 (→Recent applications of the Nature Test in Singapore). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Amenability

Similar to the United Kingdom’s position, judicial review in Singapore is confined to matters of public law and the applicable tests are the ‘source test’ and ‘nature test’. For a decision to be amenable to judicial review, the decision must have been made by a public authority, concerning a public right. It is worthy to note however, that the effect of the ‘nature test’ is greatly restricted in practice due to the insistence on the difference between contractual and governmental powers. Subsequent case laws in the United Kingdom have persisted in applying the narrow approach whereby the “existence of contract continues to place disputes on the private law side of the public-private divide”. This can be seen in the case of R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan [1993] 2 All ER 853.

It appears that the narrow approach applies in Singapore. [1] Even so, in Singapore, there has yet to be a line of cases with persistent application of the narrow approach. In fact, the ‘nature test’ continues to be applied and developed. [2]

Nevertheless, the tests are not always decisive. Singapore Courts have held certain public law functions as not being amenable to judicial review and have amended decisions of private bodies, disregarding the established tests.

History

bla

TESTS OF AMENABILITY

“Source” Test

In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] [3]}} Lord Diplock stated that for a decision to be susceptible to judicial review, the decision-maker must be empowered by public law and the ultimate source is nearly always a statute or subordinate legislation. However, this test ignores many situations where decisions are not dependable on legal rules which were endorsed by the State. This became an increasing worry in the modern polity as more privatised utilities and private bodies perform governmental functions that could potentially escape any form of scrutiny. [4]

“Nature” Test

In R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers,[5] HEY MAD, I DIDN’T USE BAILII HERE BECAUSE I COULDN’T FIND IT ON BAILIIS Lloyd LJ acknowledged that the Source Test is usually decisive, but disagreed that it is the sole test to determine whether the body is subject to judicial review. In this case, the issue was whether a body discharging functions that are quasi-judicial in nature and wielded considerable de facto public powers, was amenable to judicial review. The Panel is an unincorporated association and did not derive its power from a public source as it was an informal body which adopted a self-regulatory code to govern its members. However, the Panel possessed “immense de factor power” and its decisions would have led to other sanctions which indirectly affect the rights of citizens. Lloyd LJ explained that it is instead helpful to look at the nature of the power whether the body in question exercises public law functions or if the exercise of its functions has public law consequences.

Factors taken into account

Guys, so the content that was supposed to be here, it's now in Recent app in Singapore? So delete this yea?

Position in Singapore

In the United Kingdom, uncertainty remains whether the source or nature of power ought to be the determining factor. However, the impact of R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers [6] remains qualified in light of other decisions where source of power is the determining factor. [4] The decision in Panel was confirmed in Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda (“Linda Lai”), [7] where the respondent, an employee with the Land office, had her probationary period extended without prior warning. Her employment contract was later terminated. It was contended that the statutory bodies that decided her appeal have relevant powers under legislation. However, the Court ruled that the Source Test is not always conclusive and when statutory bodies make certain decisions, it does not invariably follow that they are exercising a statutory power. In the present case, adopting the Nature Test, there was a contract of employment between the Government and the respondent. The powers exercised by the statutory bodies were derived from the contractual terms of service and the decisions are not susceptible to judicial review. In UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town Corporation, [1] Linda Lai was acknowledged as the leading authority in Singapore on determining the amenability to judicial review with the two tests applied. In the present case, JTC had leased land to UDL and refused to renew the lease after the term expired. It was held that even though the JTC Act conferred JTC with power to lease land, it did not prescribe the terms on which JTC may lease land and considerations to be taken into account. The power to exercise leasing of land was treated as a private act as it “was not something a private individual would not be capable of doing”. [8] The court added that even though there was an element of public interest, this carried insufficient weight to render the function performed a public one.

Recent applications of the Nature Test in Singapore

Guys, would putting the factors into bullet points be better (ie (a),(b), (c))? Anyhow, whoever who did this part, please enter the para numberS in the 2 citation linkS at the end of this sec.

In the case of Yeap Wai Kong v Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Ltd (“SGX-ST”), [9] the Court analysed other factors to determine if the decision by SGX-ST to reprimand a director of a company listed under the Stock Exchange was properly characterized as a public function. These factors include the extent to which the SGX-ST is interwoven into the legislative and regulatory matric, whether the reprimand function has a statutory underpinning and the nature of the reprimand function. Even though the SGX-ST is not a statutory board, the SGX-ST is an approved exchange under s 16 of the Securities and Futures Act, which provides that it must take into account the interests of both the investing and general public when discharging its obligations. Also, SGX-ST is a vital part of the institutional ecosystem of Singapore’s financial sector. Its function to public reprimand of a listed company’s directors may potentially result in adverse business reputational implications and the director’s continued service on board committees and directorships of other listed companies.[9] For these reasons, the Nature Test was satisfied.[9]

Exceptions to the Established Tests

bla

Decisions relating to the internal procedures of Parliament

bla

Decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal

In the United Kingdom, judicial review is available as a remedy only for mistakes of law made by inferior courts and tribunals. Mistakes of law made by judges of the High Court acting in their capacity as such can be corrected only by means of an appeal to an appellate court. [10]

In contrast, in Singapore, the Court of Appeal is a statutory creation and the Supreme Court of Judiciature Act (Cap 332) (“SCJA”) does not confer on it any judicial review powers over the High Court or the Subordinate Courts. [11]

It was held in Ng Chye Huey v PP, [12] that the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction is generally of an appellate nature, and that it has, “no jurisdiction or power to hear any proceeding other than an appeal against a decision made by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. This excludes any possibility of the Court of Appeal possessing the jurisdiction and power to entertain applications for the revision or supervision of a decision made by a Subordinate Court.” [emphasis in original] [13] In Microsoft Corp v SM Summit Holdings Ltd at [17], it was held that “the words ‘original criminal jurisdiction’ in s 29A(2) [14] of the SCJA, on [their] true construction, refers to ‘trial jurisdiction’”. [emphasis added] [15]

In addition, the extent of the duty to act fairly will vary greatly from case to case. Where the vocational future of a person is at stake, the court will uphold the need for observance of the basic norms of fairness in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to be stricter [16] or where there is an express duty to decide only after conducting a hearing or an inquiry, or where the exercise of disciplinary powers may deprive a person of his property rights or impose a penalty on him. What fairness requires is for the decision of the courts as a matter of law. The issue is not one for the discretion of the decision-maker. [17]

Issues over which Judicial Review has been ousted by statute

Judicial review may be ousted by statutes where the statutes expressly provide for the exclusion of the court’s power to review the administrative decisions. However, the effect of an ouster clause depends on the individual facts of the case. Examples of statutory ouster clauses in Singapore can be found in the Internal Security Act (Cap 143) [18] and Industrial Relations Act (Cap 136) [19] and may stipulate that any determination is “final and conclusive” [20] or “shall not be subject to any Quashing Order, Prohibiting Order, Mandatory Order or injunction in any court on any account” as in the case of the latter. [21]

Application of natural justice requirements for private associations and country clubs

Nevertheless, courts may apply public law principles to private bodies, as long as the appropriate private law procedure is used. It is often said that such a jurisdiciton depends on contract and the inclusion of the concept of natural justice is an implied term in the contract.

The jurisdiction of the courts in reviewing the decisions of domestic tribunals is of a limited nature. The decision of such a tribunal cannot be attacked on the ground that it was against the weight of evidence. It is not the function of the court when exercising such supervisory jurisdiction to resolve issues of fact which were tithing the proper sphere of the tribunal’s inquiry. [22]

The English Court of Appeal held in Dawkins v Antrobus [1881- 1885] [23] at 126 that, “… where a member had been expelled from a club for committing an offence against the Constitution [of the club], the member in question had to be given proper notice of the meeting and an opportunity to attend it and be heard, and that the charges made against him and the proceedings conducted, bona fide, fairly, and in the honest exercise of the powers given to the meeting by the club.” These conditions having been fulfilled, “the court has no right to consider whether or not what was done by the meeting was right or whether or not what was decided was reasonable.”

The position is similar in Singapore where the function of the courts is to see that the rules of natural justice had been observed, and that the decision had been honestly arrived at (Singapore Amateur Athletics Association v Haron bin Mundir (“SAAA”). [24]

It has been held in Singapore that decisions by a public authority without any legal effect are not amenable to judicial review. In Tan Eng Chye v Director of Prisons [2004], [25] a case concerning an application for an order of certiorari to quash the certification of a prison medical officer, the court held that not every act or conduct of a public servant is justiciable by way of a judicial review. The High Court agreed with Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] [26], that:

In addition, the decision must have consequences which affect some person (or body persons) other than the decision-maker, although it may affect him too.

The High Court then held that the report made by the prison medical officer was obviously a decision but that alone did not make him a “decision-maker” in the sense explained by Lord Diplock. This was because the officer’s report that the appellant was fit for caning did not have legal effect – the district court judge was duty bound to impose the sentence of caning irrespective of what the officer might have said in his report. Hence, it was not a case for judicial review at all. The court also went further to illustrate more examples of non-decision making conduct, such as the acts of police officers in arresting a person suspected of committing an offence. This approach was again adopted in the more recent case of Comptroller of Income Tax v ACC [2010] [27] The Court of Appeal held that it is trite law that a quashing order will not lie unless a public authority has done something that a court can quash or, in other words, deprive of legal effect. [28] Additionally, the Court of Appeal endorsed the approach in Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) [29], observing that “a decision need not in itself have a direct legal effect or consequence before it can be quashed. A decision which operates as a prerequisite to or a step in a process capable of altering rights, interests or liabilities may also be the subject of a quashing order.” [30] The court eventually concluded that,

At present, the approach in Singapore to decisions without legal effect appears to be less liberal than that in the United Kingdom; it has been said that the English courts “now take a broad view and it is no longer necessary for a claimant to demonstrate that a decision or action has direct legal consequences upon the claimant.” [32] For instance, British courts have taken a considerably wide interpretation of the rule, expanding the scope of matters that falls within the remit of judicial review challenges to encompass even press releases and policy guidance issued by public authorities. This is illustrated in the case of R (Axon) v Secretary of State for Health [33], in which guidance issued by the Department of Health (“2004 Guidelines”), alleged to be unlawful and in contravention of Art 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, was amenable to judicial review. Such a case may be explainable on the basis that the action in question has some indirect legal effect [34] but it remains to be seen if Singapore will adopt such a broad approach.

Academic Opinions and Law Reforms

Codification?

There have been academic opinions proposing that a statutory procedure for judicial review be developed. However, looking to Australia’s experience, the success of codification is questionable. Unlike Singapore, Australia has a statutory procedure for judicial review – the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) in which application procedures are simplified, grounds of review for judicial review codified and specific new rights introduced.

Whilst codification of the grounds of review did ensure clarity and certainty of the law, one glaring limitation was the exclusion of the possibility of judicial development [35] of additional grounds since a code limits a court’s ability to change the law to adapt to circumstances. Kirby J, in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex Parte Applicant S20/2002 [2003] [36] had expressed concern about the ‘codification’ of the grounds of review – as to whether the ADJR Act had “arrested” the development of the common law doctrine [37]. This inhibiting effect could be overcome by an open-ended ground enabling review of decisions that were ‘otherwise contrary to law’ but even the effect of this has yet to be observed in Australia. Conversely, the open-ended grounds (“contrary to law” and “constitutes abuse of the power”) in Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5 and Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 6 have been described as being so underused, they can fairly be “dead letter”. [38]

The danger of codification lies in the uncertainty of interpretation of the statute in question. In relation to Australia’s ADJR Act, one line of criticism concerned the fear of overreach in scope of legislation based on the Act [39] whereas others criticized the restrictive interpretative approach by the Australian courts. For instance, cases such as NEAT Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB (“NEAT”) [40] have been criticized for diminishing the reach of the ADJR Act along with public accountability. [41]

Public-Private Divide

Even with the “source of power” and “nature of power” tests, there has still been much debate as to whether a public-private divide is even necessary. [42] It is contended that such a division has “turned the law in the wrong direction, away from the flexibility of procedure and towards the rigidity reminiscent of the bad old days…” [43]

A more desirable alternative presents itself in Northern Ireland, where the test for amenability to review is dependent on the ‘public interest’ in the issue. Thus, the public-private divide does not function at the expense of the legitimate interests of individuals. [44]


Notes

  1. ^ a b UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town Corporation [2011] SGHC 45 at [50] Cite error: The named reference "”UDL”" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Yeap Wai Kong v Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Ltd [2012] SGHC 103 at [28]
  3. ^ a b c Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1983] UKHL 6 at para. 408, [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (UK) Cite error: The named reference "”GCHQ”" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Peter Leyland & Gordon Anthony, “Introduction to judicial review” in Textbook on Administrative Law (6th ed) (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009), 205–236 at 223-226. ISBN 978‐0‐19‐921776‐2 Cite error: The named reference "”L&A," was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ R (Datafin plc) v Panel for Takeovers and Mergers [1987] QB 815 at 847
  6. ^ R (Datafin plc) v Panel for Takeovers and Mergers [1987] QB 815 at 847
  7. ^ Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda [2001] 1 SLR 644
  8. ^ UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town Corp [2011] 3 SLR 94 AT [57]
  9. ^ a b c Yeap Wai Kong v Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Ltd [2012] SGHC 103 Cite error: The named reference "”" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  10. ^ Re Racal Communications Ltd [1980] UKHL 5, [1981] A.C. 374 at 384 F-G, House of Lords (UK).
  11. ^ Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322, 2007 Rev. Ed.) ("SCJA"),s. 3
  12. ^ Ng Chye Huey v. PP [2007] SGCA 3, [2007] 2 S.L.R.(R.) 106, Court of Appeal (Singapore)
  13. ^ Ng Chye Huey v. PP [2007] SGCA 3, [2007] 2 S.L.R.(R.) 106 at para. 63, Court of Appeal (Singapore)
  14. ^ Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322, 2007 Rev. Ed.) ("SCJA"), s. 29A(2).
  15. ^ Microsoft Corp v. SM Summit Holdings Ltd [1999] 4 S.L.R. 529 at para. 17
  16. ^ Singapore Amateur Athletics Association v. Haron bin Mundir” [1993] 3 S.L.R.(R.) 407 at 427, para. 76.
  17. ^ The Right Hon Lord Woolf (2007). De Smith’s Judicial Review (6th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. p. 361. ISBN 9781847034670. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  18. ^ Internal Security Act (Cap. 143, 1985 Rev. Ed.), s. 8B
  19. ^ Industrial Relations Act (Cap. 136, 2004 Rev. Ed.)
  20. ^ Industrial Relations Act (Cap. 136, 2004 Rev. Ed.), s. 47(1).
  21. ^ Industrial Relations Act (Cap. 136, 2004 Rev. Ed.), s. 47(2).
  22. ^ Maclean v. The Workers’ Union [1929] 1 Ch. 602, Chancery Division
  23. ^ Dawkins v Antrobus [1881-1885] All E.R. Rep, Court of Appeal (England & Wales)
  24. ^ Singapore Amateur Athletics Association v. Haron bin Mundir” [1993] 3 S.L.R.(R.) 407 at 422-423, para. 57, 59
  25. ^ Tan Eng Chye v. Director of Prisons [2004] S.L.R.(R.) 521
  26. ^ Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1983] UKHL 6, [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (UK).
  27. ^ Comptroller of Income Tax v ACC [2010] 2 S.L.R. 1189.
  28. ^ Lord Woolf; Jeffrey Jowell; Andrew Le Sueur; de Smith (2007), De Smith’s Judicial Review (6th ed.), United Kingdom: Sweet & Maxwell, ISBN 978-1-84-703467-0 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |para= ignored (help)
  29. ^ Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10, 1992 175 C.L.R. 564, High Court of Australia.
  30. ^ Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10 at 580, 1992 175 C.L.R. 564, High Court of Australia.
  31. ^ Comptroller of Income Tax v ACC [2010] 2 S.L.R. 1189 at 1198, para. 21.
  32. ^ The Right Hon Lord Woolf (2007). De Smith’s Judicial Review (6th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. p. 123. ISBN 9781847034670. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help).
  33. ^ R (Axon) v. Secretary of State for Health [2006] Q.B. 539, High Court (England & Wales)
  34. ^ The Right Hon Lord Woolf (2007). De Smith’s Judicial Review (6th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. p. 123. ISBN 9781847034670. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  35. ^ Prerogative Writ Procedures: Report of Committee of Review, Parl Paper No 56 (Report). Ellicott Committee Report. 29 May 1973.
  36. ^ Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 30, 2003 198 A.L.R. 59, High Court of Australia
  37. ^ Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 30, 2003 198 A.L.R. 59 at 166, High Court of Australia.
  38. ^ Matthew Groves (2010), "Should We Follow the Gospel of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (CTH)", Melbourne University Law Review: 26.
  39. ^ Anthony E Cassimatis (2010), "Judicial Attitudes to Judicial Review: A Comparative Examination of justifications offered for restricting the scope of judicial review in Australia, Canada and England", Melbourne University Law Review: 1
  40. ^ NEAT Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB [2003] HCA 35, 216 C.L.R. 277, 198 A.L.R. 179, 77 A.L.J.R. 1263, High Court of Australia
  41. ^ Groves, Matthew (2010). "Should We Follow the Gospel of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (CTH)". Melbourne University Law Review. 34(3): 736. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |at= and |pages= specified (help).
  42. ^ Peter Leyland (2009). Textbook on Administrative Law (6th ed.). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. p. 222. ISBN 9780199217762. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  43. ^ William Wade (2004). Administrative Law (9th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 676. ISBN 978-0199270217. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  44. ^ Peter Leyland (2009). Textbook on Administrative Law (6th ed.). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. p. 229. ISBN 9780199217762. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Kzem.smu/sandbox&oldid=515896927"