Illegality Public Law
⇒We can probably add a fourth reason under the Human Rights Act 1998 – namely proportionality, i.e. the accessible place must pursue the common good, but by proportionate means. An authority may not base its decision on the instructions of another person or ask anyone else to decide on its behalf. In Lines International, the applicant alleged that the EPP limited its discretion by acting according to the diktat, since one of the conditions for allocating seats was as follows: At the same time, reference may be made to the key case of Coleen Properties Ltd. v. in the United Kingdom. The plaintiff, who owned a large and valuable piece of land adjacent to the subway, applied to the High Court for legal protection against the installation of the toilet. At Saunders Law, we are dedicated to protecting civil liberties and balancing power between the state and individuals. We can assess the facts of your case to determine if you can challenge the public body through judicial review. Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs (1988) is the reference example in Singaporean law for the principle that the role of a court in reviewing discretion depends on whether it is a judicial act or a precedent-setting fact.  Relying on the British case of Khera v. Secretary of State for the Home Office; Khawaja v.
State Secretary, Ministry of the Interior (“Khawaja”, 1983).  Presiding Justice Wee Chong Jin, writing for the Court of Appeal, noted that the scope of judicial review of an executive decision depends on whether it is a precedent. While discretion does not fall within the category of precedents, the scope of judicial review is limited to the normal principles of judicial review of illegality, irrationality (i.e., Wednesbury insufficiency) and procedural inadequacy.  On the other hand, in the case of one or more precedents, the scope of judicial review extends “to the determination whether the evidence warrants the decision.”  The High Court`s Re Fong Thin Choo (1991) case is decisive in the fact that in Singapore, a decision of an authority may be challenged on the grounds that it is based on missing or insufficient evidence. In the present case, the Tribunal was asked to examine the decision of the Director General of Customs and Excise to impose customs duties on certain goods imported into the country by the applicant but allegedly not re-exported. In his judgment, Justice Chan Sek Keong agreed with Lord Wilberforce in Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (1976) that the court was “entitled to examine the existence of the facts on the basis of which the assessment was made”. The test requires the tribunal to consider “whether the [decision-maker] could reasonably have made a decision on the basis of the evidence before him”.  ⇒ The applicant submitted that, although the local authority has the legal authority to install public toilets, the creation of a subway allowing the public to walk under the road (whether or not to use the toilet) went beyond the legal powers conferred on the local authority by law. It has been suggested that a question of fact concerns a question that concerns primary facts such as a new witness or what people have seen or heard, whereas a question of law involves the application of a legal word or step to such facts.
However, this distinction is controversial and it has been argued that courts sometimes view a legal issue simply as an error of law when they want to take an interventionist approach and try to allow for judicial review.  In any event, it is said that courts generally treat errors of fact by public authorities differently from errors of law. While courts consider errors of law to be within their jurisdiction and therefore subject to judicial review, they are more reluctant to intervene when errors of fact are alleged.  ⇒ Some say that judicial review is not really about that, but rather about access to specific remedies that the court (HC) can offer in particular, for example, a rescission order, a mandatory injunction, a declaration, a prohibition on a public body doing anything it intends to do, injunctions, etc. In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords has considered the appropriateness of the availability of financial resources for the decision of an authority. In R.v. Gloucestershire County Council, ex parte Barry (1997), the court found that it was appropriate for Gloucestershire County Council, which was required by law to provide home care services for the elderly and infirm, to consider the cost of that decision in determining whether they should be removed. For example, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead stated that “the need for services cannot reasonably be assessed without regard to the cost of providing them. A person`s need for a particular type or level of service cannot be decided in a vacuum from which all cost considerations have been excluded.
 A decision of a public authority is subject to judicial review if the authority has taken into account irrelevant considerations in its decision. This is shown by Tan Gek Neo Jessie v. Minister of Finance (1991).  In this case, the Enterprise Registrar wrote to the applicant ordering him to change the name of his corporation, “JC Penney Collections”, to one that did not use the name “JC Penney”. At that time, two trademarks were registered with the Register of Trademarks in Singapore under the name “Penneys”. Both trademarks were owned by JC Penney Company Inc., a U.S.-based corporation. These marks have not been used in Singapore by the American company. The applicant appealed the Registrar`s decision to the Minister of Finance, which was dismissed.
The applicant then applied to the certiorari to set aside the decisions of the Registrar and the Minister.  A public authority may have fulfilled all the factual and legal conditions for the exercise of a legal power conferred on it, but may nevertheless have acted unlawfully in doing so administratively.  “By `illegality` as a ground for judicial review, I mean that the decision-maker must understand and properly implement the law governing his or her decision-making authority. ⇒ Another approach to thinking about illegality is based on the term ultra vires, which means “without power” or “beyond power”, i.e. A decision of a public authority is amenable to judicial review if it is ultra vires In cases falling under the second subheading, a public authority has fulfilled all the factual and legal conditions for the exercise of a legal competence conferred on it, but may nevertheless have acted unlawfully by doing so administratively illegally. The grounds for verification available under this heading include the authority acting in bad faith, acting on the basis of missing or insufficient evidence, erring in relation to material facts, disregarding relevant or irrelevant considerations, acting for an unlawful purpose, limiting its discretion and failing to meet a person`s substantial legitimate expectations.