Case Details
- Citation: [2001] SGHC 292
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2001-10-01
- Judges: Choo Han Teck JC
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Lee Huay Kok
- Defendant/Respondent: The Attorney General
- Legal Areas: No catchword
- Statutes Referenced: None specified
- Cases Cited: [2001] SGHC 291, [2001] SGHC 292
- Judgment Length: 1 page, 74 words
Summary
This brief High Court judgment addresses an administrative matter regarding the citation of a previous case, Lee Huay Kok v The Attorney General. The court notes that the citation for the earlier case has been reassigned to new references, but provides no further details about the substance or outcome of that prior case.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The facts of this case are extremely limited, as the judgment is only one paragraph long and provides minimal details. Based on the information given, this appears to be a procedural matter regarding the citation of a previous case, Lee Huay Kok v The Attorney General.
The judgment states that the "citation for this case has been reassigned to [2001] 3 SLR(R) 287; [2001] 4 SLR 248; [2001] SGHC 291 on 14 July 2010." However, the judgment does not explain the reasons for this citation change or provide any background on the original case.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue in this case appears to be a purely administrative matter regarding the citation of a previous court judgment. The High Court was tasked with noting that the citation for the earlier Lee Huay Kok v The Attorney General case had been reassigned to new references.
Beyond this citation change, the judgment does not indicate that there were any substantive legal issues or arguments presented to the court. The brevity of the judgment suggests this was a straightforward administrative matter with no complex legal questions to resolve.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
Given the extremely limited nature of this judgment, the court's analysis is also quite brief. The entire judgment consists of a single paragraph simply stating the fact that the citation for the previous Lee Huay Kok v The Attorney General case had been reassigned.
The judgment does not provide any reasoning or explanation for why the citation was changed. It merely states the new citations without elaborating on the purpose or process behind this administrative update. The court does not appear to have engaged in any substantive legal analysis or reasoning in reaching this decision.
What Was the Outcome?
The outcome of this case is the court's formal acknowledgement that the citation for the previous Lee Huay Kok v The Attorney General case has been reassigned. Specifically, the judgment states that the citation has been changed to "[2001] 3 SLR(R) 287; [2001] 4 SLR 248; [2001] SGHC 291" as of July 14, 2010.
Beyond this administrative update, the judgment does not indicate any other orders, remedies, or practical effects resulting from the court's decision. The brevity of the judgment suggests this was a routine, non-contentious matter that the court resolved through a simple notification of the citation change.
Why Does This Case Matter?
Given the extremely limited nature of this judgment, its legal significance and practical implications are quite narrow. The case does not appear to have established any new legal precedents or principles. It was simply a procedural matter regarding the citation of a previous court case.
However, this judgment does serve as a reminder that courts may occasionally need to issue administrative rulings to update or clarify the citation of their own prior decisions. Such updates can be important for maintaining the accuracy and consistency of legal research and case law databases. While not substantively significant, this type of judgment can still be relevant for lawyers and researchers seeking to properly identify and reference earlier court rulings.
Legislation Referenced
- None specified
Cases Cited
- [2001] SGHC 291
- [2001] SGHC 292
Source Documents
This article analyses [2001] SGHC 292 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.