Legitimate expectation in Singapore law

However, whether the courts will adopt the UK approach with regard to measuring legitimate expectation with the ruler of proportionality remains an open question.

The Minister argued that it had been necessary to take that step as the trade unions were conducting strikes that crippled GCHQ operations and threatened the national security of the United Kingdom.

Such a representation can come in the form of a clear and unambiguous promise to hear the individual or an established practice to consult those affected before taking the decision.

The English courts initially wavered in recognizing that an individual has a legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit arising from a representation from the authorities.

The notion of protecting a substantive legitimate expectation was espoused in the 1995 High Court decision in R. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Hamble (Off-shore) Fisheries Ltd.[3] In that controversial case, Justice Stephen Sedley formulated the framework for legitimate expectations as the balance of the requirements of fairness against the decision-maker's reasons to change the policy.

[7] In 1996, the Court of Appeal opined in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hargreaves[8] that "[o]n matters of substance (as contrasted with procedure) Wednesbury provides the correct test".

[14] On the other hand, when assessing a case in the second situation, the court decides whether for an authority to frustrate an expectation is so unfair that it amounts to an abuse of power.

[24] Coughlan has been criticized for allowing the doctrine of proportionality to affect administrative law, as the court has to judge the merits of a case when granting a review on grounds of substantive legitimate expectation and, in a sense, usurp the discretion of the executive branch of government.

This is arguably inconsistent with the court's traditional role in judicial review which is to avoid examining the merits of administrative decisions and only scrutinize them for compliance with the law.

[28] In his judgment, Justice T. S. Sinnathuray considered Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1968),[29] decided by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.

[35] In his judgment written on behalf of the Court, Chief Justice Yong Pung How stated that the idea behind the doctrine is that certain "expectations could, in suitable circumstances, be deserving of protection, even though they did not acquire the force of a legal right".

[36] Nonetheless, the Court stated: "[W]e were not concerned with judicial review, nor were we deciding whether any claim of a legitimate expectation could estop the Prisons Department in future from applying the interpretation which we gave to life imprisonment.

In Siah Mooi Guat, another argument the applicant raised was that she had a legitimate expectation to continue to reside in Singapore until the expiry of her re-entry permit.

In the Privy Council case there had been an express promise made to Ng by the Government of Hong Kong which had created a substantive legitimate expectation.

In the present case, no promise had been made to be applicant that her stay in Singapore was to be conditioned by any considerations other than those provided in the Immigration Act and related regulations.

[40] Thus, the judge did not discuss the detailed legal rules to be applied to determine when an aggrieved person may be said to have a legitimate expectation to a substantive right.

[42] It adopted four conditions set out in De Smith's Judicial Review (6th ed., 2007)[43] to determine whether a legitimate expectation has been created: the public body's representation must be clear, unambiguous and devoid of any relevant qualification; induced by the conduct of the decision-maker; made by a person with actual or ostensible authority; and applicable to the applicant, who belongs to the class of persons to whom the representation is reasonably expected to apply.

Ltd. v. Jurong Town Corp. (2011),[46] the High Court "entertain[ed] some doubt" as to whether the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation is part of Singapore law, but did not discuss the matter further as neither the respondent nor the Attorney-General had made submissions on the issue.

(f) Even if all the above requirements are met, the court should nevertheless not grant relief if: Academics have expressed scepticism as to whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation should apply to substantive rights.

On the other hand, it is the job of the courts to determine whether an authority's application of a policy to an individual who has been led to expect something different is a just exercise of power.

Members of the largely public-sector trade union UNISON on strike for better pay at The Forum in Norwich , UK, in July 2008. In both the UK and Singapore , where a public authority has made a clear representation to individuals regarding a certain policy position it has taken, such as their remuneration, these persons have a legitimate expectation to be consulted before the policy is changed, and possibly also a legitimate expectation that the original policy should apply to them.
A model of Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in Cheltenham , UK, popularly known as "The Doughnut". A 1983 case decided by the House of Lords involving GCHQ employees established the principle that a clear representation by a public authority that it will hold a consultation before making a decision can give rise to a legitimate expectation that such a consultation, and that a decision can be quashed if the expectation is not fulfilled.
The Royal Courts of Justice in London, where the Court of Appeal of England and Wales sits. In a 1999 case, the Court controversially held that individuals can have a legitimate expectation to receive a substantive benefit, not merely a procedural right.
A night view of the Supreme Court of Singapore from the lane between the Old Supreme Court Building and City Hall . The existence of the legitimate expectation doctrine has been accepted by the Singapore courts .
The URA Centre, photographed in January 2006. A 2009 decision of the High Court involving the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) confirmed that the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation applies in Singapore .