LITT
Try LITT free
Wang Yunhe v Attorney-General [2026] SGHC 11
The court held that judicial review is a remedy of last resort and that the applicant failed to exhaust alternative remedies, specifically the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court under s 27 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969.
Lim Siew Mui v SkillsFuture Singapore Agency [2025] SGHC 235
In Lim Siew Mui v SkillsFuture Singapore Agency, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Administrative Law — Judicial review.
Cheng Chang Hup v Attorney-General [2025] SGHC 178
The court dismissed an application for leave to apply for judicial review to quash a Coroner's findings, holding that the Coroner had fulfilled his statutory duty under the Coroners Act and that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of illegality, irrationality, or
Lun Yaodong Clarence v Law Society of Singapore [2025] SGHC 137
The court held that an applicant for judicial review must establish an arguable and prima facie case of reasonable suspicion, and that the Review Committee's function is to act as a sifting mechanism to weed out frivolous complaints.
Tang Huixian and others v Soka Gakkai Singapore [2025] SGHC 131
The court's supervisory jurisdiction over religious associations is contractual in nature. The court will not adjudicate on religious doctrine but will ensure compliance with the association's constitution and the implied rules of natural justice.
Sentek Marine & Trading Pte Ltd v Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore [2024] SGHC 213
In Sentek Marine & Trading Pte Ltd v Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Administrative Law — Judicial review.
Kottakki Srinivas Patnaik v Attorney-General [2024] SGCA 5
In Kottakki Srinivas Patnaik v Attorney-General, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Administrative Law — Remedies, Constitutional Law — Equal protection of the law.
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General [2024] SGCA 39
The court held that the Singapore Prison Services and the Attorney-General's Chambers acted unlawfully in requesting and disclosing prisoners' personal correspondence without legal basis, and that such disclosure constituted a breach of confidence.
Arif Rahim Valibhoy v Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (Mohamed Shariff Valibhoy and others, non-parties) [2023] SGHC 341
The court held that former trustees who were party to the same decision as the applicant in a judicial review are 'directly affected' parties under O 53 r 2(3) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) and may be joined as respondents under O 15 r 6(2)(b) of the ROC.
Koh Shu Cii Iris v Attorney-General [2023] SGHC 229
The court held that a Magistrate has judicial discretion under s 152(1) of the CPC to dismiss a complaint without further inquiry if the complaint discloses no offence, and that there is no statutory right of appeal against such a dismissal.
Li See Kit Lawrence v Debate Association (Singapore) [2023] SGHC 154
The court held that an unincorporated association's disciplinary actions (a ban and notification to partners) were ultra vires its constitution and breached natural justice where the constitution lacked clear disciplinary powers and the member was denied a fair hearing.
Han Li Ying Kirsten v Attorney-General [2023] SGHC 137
A conditional warning issued by the police in lieu of prosecution for contempt of court does not have legal effect and is therefore not susceptible to judicial review.
Ho Paul v Singapore Medical Council [2008] SGHC 9
The court held that tribunals are not required to provide additional assistance to unrepresented parties beyond the rules of natural justice, and that sentencing precedents should be considered to ensure consistency.
Komoco Motors Pte Ltd v Registrar of Vehicles and another [2007] SGHC 74
The Registrar of Vehicles fettered her discretion by adopting a policy of blindly following Customs' valuation of motor vehicles without exercising an independent mind, particularly when exceptional circumstances were raised.
Ng Gino Ernest v Triathlon Association of Singapore [2007] SGHC 183
The court granted leave to apply for judicial review of the respondent's selection decision, finding that the applicant had made out a case requiring a response regarding potential breaches of natural justice.
Kay Swee Pin v Singapore Island Country Club [2007] SGHC 166
The court's role in reviewing decisions of domestic tribunals is limited to ensuring natural justice and adherence to the club's rules, and it does not sit on appeal to review the evidence or resolve factual issues.
Re Wong Sin Yee [2007] SGHC 147
The court held that preventive detention under the CLTPA is not punitive and is dependent on the Minister's subjective satisfaction regarding criminal association and the necessity for public safety, and that judicial review is limited to illegality, procedural impropriety, and i
Pang Chen Suan v Commissioner for Labour [2007] SGHC 138
The court held that the Commissioner for Labour's decision to refuse reinstatement of a workmen's compensation claim was not irrational or unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense, as the applicant failed to show 'reasonable cause' for the late submission.
Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni [2007] SGHC 12
The court held that the general rule that costs follow the event applies to disciplinary proceedings, and a successful party is entitled to costs unless there are special circumstances warranting a departure.
Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue [2006] SGHC 93
An application for leave to apply for certiorari and mandamus filed 22 years after the compulsory acquisition of land is out of time under O 53 r 1(6) of the Rules of Court, and the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion of bad faith.
Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni [2006] SGHC 194
In Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni [2006] SGHC 194, the High Court quashed a Disciplinary Committee's findings, ruling that the committee failed to maintain impartiality and 'descended into the arena,' thereby violating the rules of natural justice and creating a reasonable suspicion of bias.