'In the Interests of Justice' as the New Test to Exclude Relevant Evidence in Singapore: ANB v ANC [2014] SGHC 172; Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim [2014] SGHC 180

In 2012, Singapore’s venerable Evidence Act (EA), which is based on Stephen’s Indian Evidence Act of 1872, underwent major amendments for only the third time in 120 years. Previously, conflicting case law had created long-standing confusion as to whether the Singapore courts possessed any discretion...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: CHEN, Siyuan
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2015
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1321
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3273/viewcontent/InterestJusticeTestExcludeRelevantEvidenceSingapore_2015_pvoa.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.sol_research-3273
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.sol_research-32732017-04-21T07:27:54Z 'In the Interests of Justice' as the New Test to Exclude Relevant Evidence in Singapore: ANB v ANC [2014] SGHC 172; Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim [2014] SGHC 180 CHEN, Siyuan In 2012, Singapore’s venerable Evidence Act (EA), which is based on Stephen’s Indian Evidence Act of 1872, underwent major amendments for only the third time in 120 years. Previously, conflicting case law had created long-standing confusion as to whether the Singapore courts possessed any discretion to exclude evidence even when was found relevant under the EA. The main reason driving this jurisprudential inconsistency was that while the relevancy provisions in the EA were meant to provide exhaustive definitions of admissibility, Stephen’s then-revolutionary ‘inclusionary’ approach to relevance was simply at odds with modern conceptions of relevance and modern litigation practice. Thus, more often than not, the Singapore courts would refer to the common law rules of evidence rather than the EA. 2015-01-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1321 info:doi/10.1177/1365712714566374 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3273/viewcontent/InterestJusticeTestExcludeRelevantEvidenceSingapore_2015_pvoa.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Indian Evidence Act of 1872 exclusionary discretion interests of justice probative value and prejudicial effect Singapore Asian Studies Evidence
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic Indian Evidence Act of 1872
exclusionary discretion
interests of justice
probative value and prejudicial effect
Singapore
Asian Studies
Evidence
spellingShingle Indian Evidence Act of 1872
exclusionary discretion
interests of justice
probative value and prejudicial effect
Singapore
Asian Studies
Evidence
CHEN, Siyuan
'In the Interests of Justice' as the New Test to Exclude Relevant Evidence in Singapore: ANB v ANC [2014] SGHC 172; Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim [2014] SGHC 180
description In 2012, Singapore’s venerable Evidence Act (EA), which is based on Stephen’s Indian Evidence Act of 1872, underwent major amendments for only the third time in 120 years. Previously, conflicting case law had created long-standing confusion as to whether the Singapore courts possessed any discretion to exclude evidence even when was found relevant under the EA. The main reason driving this jurisprudential inconsistency was that while the relevancy provisions in the EA were meant to provide exhaustive definitions of admissibility, Stephen’s then-revolutionary ‘inclusionary’ approach to relevance was simply at odds with modern conceptions of relevance and modern litigation practice. Thus, more often than not, the Singapore courts would refer to the common law rules of evidence rather than the EA.
format text
author CHEN, Siyuan
author_facet CHEN, Siyuan
author_sort CHEN, Siyuan
title 'In the Interests of Justice' as the New Test to Exclude Relevant Evidence in Singapore: ANB v ANC [2014] SGHC 172; Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim [2014] SGHC 180
title_short 'In the Interests of Justice' as the New Test to Exclude Relevant Evidence in Singapore: ANB v ANC [2014] SGHC 172; Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim [2014] SGHC 180
title_full 'In the Interests of Justice' as the New Test to Exclude Relevant Evidence in Singapore: ANB v ANC [2014] SGHC 172; Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim [2014] SGHC 180
title_fullStr 'In the Interests of Justice' as the New Test to Exclude Relevant Evidence in Singapore: ANB v ANC [2014] SGHC 172; Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim [2014] SGHC 180
title_full_unstemmed 'In the Interests of Justice' as the New Test to Exclude Relevant Evidence in Singapore: ANB v ANC [2014] SGHC 172; Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim [2014] SGHC 180
title_sort 'in the interests of justice' as the new test to exclude relevant evidence in singapore: anb v anc [2014] sghc 172; wan lai ting v kea kah kim [2014] sghc 180
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2015
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1321
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3273/viewcontent/InterestJusticeTestExcludeRelevantEvidenceSingapore_2015_pvoa.pdf
_version_ 1772829833553772544