Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent)
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
| Judge | Unknown |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 1994 |
| Neutral Citation | [1994] SGCA 148 |
| Citation | [1994] SGCA 148 |
| Published date | 27 November 2006 |
| Date | 1994 |
The following statement was read by the Honourable the Chief Justice at the commencement of hearings of the Court of Appeal on Monday, 11 July 1994.
With the abolition of all appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the establishment of the Court of Appeal as the final appellate court in Singapore, we consider it desirable that we state the use of precedent in the Court of Appeal in future.
We recognize the vital role that the doctrine of stare decisis plays in giving certainty to the law and predictability on its application to similar cases. However, we also recognize that the political, social and economic circumstances of Singapore have changed enormously since Singapore became an independent and sovereign republic. The development of our law should reflect these changes and the fundamental values of Singapore society.
Accordingly, it is proper that the Court of Appeal should not hold itself bound by any previous decisions of its own or of the Privy Council, which by the rules of precedent prevailing prior to 8 April 1994 were binding on it, in any case where adherence to such prior decisions would cause injustice in a particular case or constrain the development of the law in conformity with the circumstances of Singapore.
Therefore, whilst this court will continue to treat such prior decisions as normally binding, this court will, whenever it appears right to do so, depart from such prior decisions. Bearing in mind the danger of retrospectively disturbing contractual, proprietary and other legal rights, this power will be exercised sparingly,
This statement is not intended to affect the use of precedent in the High Court or in any subordinate courts.
____________________
Editor’s Note
The Honourable the Chief Justice has directed that from1 July 1994, all written judgments and grounds should state not only the date of delivery but also the dates of hearing. Consequently, all judgments reported in The Singapore Law Reports will also include dates of hearing,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor
...Singapore (and is hence spared from the constraints of stare decisis: see Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) of the Court of Appeal [1994] 2 SLR 689) is constitutionally charged with the responsibility of departing from any existing interpretation if such interpretation no longer assum......
-
Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd (formerly known as E D & F Man International (S) Pte Ltd) v Wong Bark Chuan David
...court) to depart from its own prior decisions pursuant to the criteria set out in this court’s Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1994] 2 SLR 689. This court is, a fortiori, free not to follow prior English (or other foreign) decisions if finds the analysis and reasoning therein unper......
-
Sports Connection Pte Ltd v Deuter Sports GmbH
...court) to depart from its own prior decisions pursuant to the criteria set out in this court’s Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1994] 2 SLR 689. This court is, a fortiori, free not to follow prior English (or other foreign) decisions if finds the analysis and reasoning therein unper......
-
See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd
...562 (refd) Mohd bin Sapri v Soil-Build (Pte) Ltd [1996] 2 SLR (R) 223; [1996] 2 SLR 505 (overd) Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1994] 2 SLR 689; [1994] SGCA 148 (folld) Revill v Newbery [1996] QB 567 (refd) Riden v ACBillings & Sons Ltd [1957] 1 QB 46 (not folld) Robert Addie and S......
-
ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
...ss 298(6)–298(7). 109 Mok Swee Kok v Public Prosecutor [1994] 3 SLR(R) 134. 110 Pursuant to the Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1994] 2 SLR 689, similar to that issued by the House of Lords at [1966] 1 WLR 1234 and now applicable in the UK Supreme Court: Austin v Southwark London B......
-
CONTRACT LAW IN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES: UNIFORMITY OR DIVERGENCE?
...Court of Appeal decision in Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General [2016] 1 SLR 992 at [20]. 24 Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1994] 2 SLR 689. 25 See para 8 above. 26 Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] 1 WLR 1988 at [21]. 27 See, for example, John W Carter, “The Impli......
-
(Non‐)Enforcement of Directors’ Duties in Corporate Groups: Goh Chan Peng v Beyonics Technology Ltd
...of England and Walesgenerally bound by its own prior decisions, albeit with exceptions).87 Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1994] SGCA 148; [1994] 2 SLR 689.88 Re Dominion International Group plc (No 2) [1996] 1 BCLC 572 (ChD), 634 per Knox J (directors’disqualification proceedings);......
-
RETHINKING THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT
...Judges of the Supreme Court and the Senior District Judge, and does not involve Parliament. 44 Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1994] 2 SLR 689. 45 The Rules of Supreme Court 1934, which were in force when Re Abdul Aziz's Application[1962] 28 MLJ 64 was decided, did not state that c......