Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent)

CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
Judgment Date11 July 1994
Neutral Citation[1994] SGCA 148
Citation[1994] SGCA 148
Published date27 November 2006

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Ho Soo Fong and Another v Standard Chartered Bank
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 29 January 2007 time that we aligned our approach with that of the other Commonwealth courts. Pursuant to our Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1994] 2 SLR 689, we would hold that, in so far as Khushvinder Singhapplied the Liesbosch principle, it should no longer be followed by a future court.In ......
  • Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and other appeals
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 7 April 2017
    ...of appeals to the Privy Council, which took effect on 8 April 1994. They rely on a line in the Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1994] 2 SLR 689 (“the Practice Statement”) that provides that the statement, which was issued on 11 July 1994 in the wake of the abolition of the appeals t......
  • Sports Connection Pte Ltd v Deuter Sports GmbH
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 1 June 2009
    ...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......
  • Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 12 May 2008
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2019, December 2019
    • 1 December 2019 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......
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2019, December 2019
    • 1 December 2019
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 81-4, July 2018
    • 1 July 2018
    ...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);......
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT