The unmeritorious ‘legality’/‘merits’ distinction in Singapore administrative law

The Singapore courts often state that judicial review of executive decision-making ought only to involve an inquiry into the ‘legality’ of a decision or the ‘decision-making process’, and not the ‘decision itself’ or its ‘merits’ – let us call this the ‘Distinction’. This paper argues that the Disti...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: ONG, Benjamin Joshua
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3650
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5608/viewcontent/The_Unmeritorious_Legality_Merits_Distinction_in_Singapore_Administrative_Law__repositories_.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-5608
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.sol_research-56082022-01-28T01:42:13Z The unmeritorious ‘legality’/‘merits’ distinction in Singapore administrative law ONG, Benjamin Joshua The Singapore courts often state that judicial review of executive decision-making ought only to involve an inquiry into the ‘legality’ of a decision or the ‘decision-making process’, and not the ‘decision itself’ or its ‘merits’ – let us call this the ‘Distinction’. This paper argues that the Distinction should be expunged from Singapore law. The Distinction has its roots in English case law which aimed to prevent the courts from arbitrarily substituting their decision for the executive’s by reason of mere disagreement. But Singapore case law has gone further and treated the Distinction as a general principle applicable to all of administrative law. However, the Distinction is too vague for this purpose (as seen from Singapore cases which have interpreted the distinction inconsistently). It is conceptually problematic, incompatible with the practicalities of judicial review (particularly substantive review as recognised in Singapore law), and has occasionally been paid lip service but not followed in substance. The Distinction cannot form a coherent principle to guide the courts and ought to be replaced by a more nuanced application of constitutional principles relevant to determining the appropriate scope of review. Whatever these principles may be, and however they are to be balanced, the Distinction can be but an over-inclusive rough approximation of them which hampers the development of the law. 2021-07-01T07:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3650 info:doi/10.1017/asjcl.2021.10 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5608/viewcontent/The_Unmeritorious_Legality_Merits_Distinction_in_Singapore_Administrative_Law__repositories_.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 administrative law judicial review Singapore substantive review merits review Administrative Law Asian Studies
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic administrative law
judicial review
Singapore
substantive review
merits review
Administrative Law
Asian Studies
spellingShingle administrative law
judicial review
Singapore
substantive review
merits review
Administrative Law
Asian Studies
ONG, Benjamin Joshua
The unmeritorious ‘legality’/‘merits’ distinction in Singapore administrative law
description The Singapore courts often state that judicial review of executive decision-making ought only to involve an inquiry into the ‘legality’ of a decision or the ‘decision-making process’, and not the ‘decision itself’ or its ‘merits’ – let us call this the ‘Distinction’. This paper argues that the Distinction should be expunged from Singapore law. The Distinction has its roots in English case law which aimed to prevent the courts from arbitrarily substituting their decision for the executive’s by reason of mere disagreement. But Singapore case law has gone further and treated the Distinction as a general principle applicable to all of administrative law. However, the Distinction is too vague for this purpose (as seen from Singapore cases which have interpreted the distinction inconsistently). It is conceptually problematic, incompatible with the practicalities of judicial review (particularly substantive review as recognised in Singapore law), and has occasionally been paid lip service but not followed in substance. The Distinction cannot form a coherent principle to guide the courts and ought to be replaced by a more nuanced application of constitutional principles relevant to determining the appropriate scope of review. Whatever these principles may be, and however they are to be balanced, the Distinction can be but an over-inclusive rough approximation of them which hampers the development of the law.
format text
author ONG, Benjamin Joshua
author_facet ONG, Benjamin Joshua
author_sort ONG, Benjamin Joshua
title The unmeritorious ‘legality’/‘merits’ distinction in Singapore administrative law
title_short The unmeritorious ‘legality’/‘merits’ distinction in Singapore administrative law
title_full The unmeritorious ‘legality’/‘merits’ distinction in Singapore administrative law
title_fullStr The unmeritorious ‘legality’/‘merits’ distinction in Singapore administrative law
title_full_unstemmed The unmeritorious ‘legality’/‘merits’ distinction in Singapore administrative law
title_sort unmeritorious ‘legality’/‘merits’ distinction in singapore administrative law
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2021
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3650
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5608/viewcontent/The_Unmeritorious_Legality_Merits_Distinction_in_Singapore_Administrative_Law__repositories_.pdf
_version_ 1770576082412503040