English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

Revisiting remedies and the legality-merits distinction in Singapore administrative law: CBB v Law Society of Singapore [2021] SGCA 6