Reconsidering ouster clauses in Singapore administrative law
Followingclosely in the wake of R. (on the application of Privacy International) v InvestigatoryPowers Tribunal and others [2019] UKSC 22; [2019] 2 W.L.R. 1219, the Singapore Court ofAppeal issued a decision which holds potentially far-reaching implications for ousterclauses in Singapore law.While n...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3018 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Followingclosely in the wake of R. (on the application of Privacy International) v InvestigatoryPowers Tribunal and others [2019] UKSC 22; [2019] 2 W.L.R. 1219, the Singapore Court ofAppeal issued a decision which holds potentially far-reaching implications for ousterclauses in Singapore law.While not engaging Privacy International directly, thecourt’s decision in Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor[2019] SGCA 37; [2019] 2 S.L.R. 216 echoedLord Carnwath’s emphasis, in Privacy International,on the resilience of the supervisory jurisdiction in the face of legislativeouster clauses, albeit on justificatory grounds specific to the Singaporecontext. In so doing, the decision provided an important signal of thejudicial attitude in Singapore towards legislative ouster clauses. Yet, the court’s assiduousavoidance of a direct engagement with ouster clause doctrine represents a missed opportunity toclarify the law in Singapore, which has thus far remained substantially shapedby the framework provided by Anisminic Ltd v ForeignCompensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147; [1969] 1 All E.R. 208. |
|---|