重新审视新加坡行政法中的救济和合法性-merit区分:CBB诉新加坡法律协会[2021]SGCA 6

Kenny Chng, Soon Wen Qi Andrea
{"title":"重新审视新加坡行政法中的救济和合法性-merit区分:CBB诉新加坡法律协会[2021]SGCA 6","authors":"Kenny Chng, Soon Wen Qi Andrea","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2022.2026629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT It is a general principle of administrative law that the courts will not compel a decision-maker to perform a public duty in a particular manner by way of a mandatory order. However, in CBB v Law Society of Singapore [2021] SGCA 6, the Singapore Court of Appeal notably accepted that an exception could be made to this general principle where there was only one reasonable way to perform the public duty in question. Beyond the decision’s obvious ramifications for the law relating to public law remedies in Singapore, this note argues that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning has significant implications for administrative law in Singapore more broadly. Indeed, the Court’s ruling is indicative of a shift in attitude towards the legality-merits distinction, a foundational principle of administrative law in Singapore.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting remedies and the legality-merits distinction in Singapore administrative law: CBB v Law Society of Singapore [2021] SGCA 6\",\"authors\":\"Kenny Chng, Soon Wen Qi Andrea\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14729342.2022.2026629\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT It is a general principle of administrative law that the courts will not compel a decision-maker to perform a public duty in a particular manner by way of a mandatory order. However, in CBB v Law Society of Singapore [2021] SGCA 6, the Singapore Court of Appeal notably accepted that an exception could be made to this general principle where there was only one reasonable way to perform the public duty in question. Beyond the decision’s obvious ramifications for the law relating to public law remedies in Singapore, this note argues that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning has significant implications for administrative law in Singapore more broadly. Indeed, the Court’s ruling is indicative of a shift in attitude towards the legality-merits distinction, a foundational principle of administrative law in Singapore.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2022.2026629\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2022.2026629","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

法院不以强制命令的方式强迫决策者以特定方式履行公共职责,这是行政法的一般原则。然而,在CBB诉新加坡律师协会[2021]SGCA 6案中,新加坡上诉法院明显接受了这一一般原则的例外,即只有一种合理的方式来履行有关的公共义务。除了该判决对新加坡公法救济相关法律的明显影响外,本说明认为,上诉法院的推理对新加坡更广泛的行政法具有重大影响。事实上,法院的裁决表明,新加坡行政法的一项基本原则,即对合法性-价值区分的态度发生了转变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Revisiting remedies and the legality-merits distinction in Singapore administrative law: CBB v Law Society of Singapore [2021] SGCA 6
ABSTRACT It is a general principle of administrative law that the courts will not compel a decision-maker to perform a public duty in a particular manner by way of a mandatory order. However, in CBB v Law Society of Singapore [2021] SGCA 6, the Singapore Court of Appeal notably accepted that an exception could be made to this general principle where there was only one reasonable way to perform the public duty in question. Beyond the decision’s obvious ramifications for the law relating to public law remedies in Singapore, this note argues that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning has significant implications for administrative law in Singapore more broadly. Indeed, the Court’s ruling is indicative of a shift in attitude towards the legality-merits distinction, a foundational principle of administrative law in Singapore.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Blurring boundaries on ‘taking part’ in an unlawful assembly: HKSAR v Choy Kin Yue (2022) 25 HKCFAR 360 ‘The law has taken all my rights away’: on India’s conundrum of able-normative death with dignity ‘Delicate plants’, ‘loose cannons’, or ‘a marriage of true minds’? The role of academic literature in judicial decision-making Legal transplantation of minors’ contracts in India and Malaysia: ‘Weak’ Watson and a ‘misfitted’ transplant Corruption and the constitutional position of the Overseas Territories
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1