[2012] SGCA 45

“r discretion to hear hypothetical issues even in the area of constitutional law which is part of public law and the matter should be approached on a narrow basis: see Tan Eng Hong v. Attorney-General [2012] SGCA 45 and as a general rule, the apex court has been consistent against answering abstract, academic, or hypoth”

“lis, the courts may find themselves being called on to give advisory opinions on abstract, hypothetical and/or academic questions instead of deciding on real disputes” Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General [2012] SGCA 45 at [132]). As explained by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Leung T C William Roy v Secretary for Justice”

“question is wholly ineffectual to the parties, it would be unnecessary and pointless but also inexpedient to decide and the Court would properly decline to do so (see Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General [2012] SGCA 45; Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada v Fervis [1944] 1 All ER 469; HOL at 470 pe Viscount Simon LC; Ainsbury v”

“ir discretion to hear hypothetical issues even in the area of constitutional law which is part of public law and the matter should be approached on a narrow basis: see Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General [2012] SGCA 45 and as a general rule, the apex court has been consistent against answering abstract, academic, or hypoth”

“ersy? [45] Useful illumination on this question can be gleaned from three cases in different jurisdictions, all relating to similar subject matters: Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General [2012] 4 SLR 476; [2012] SGCA 45 (Singapore Court of Appeal), Croome v State of Tasmania [1997] HCA 5; (1997) 142 ALR 397 (High Court of Au”