Judgment Header
Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General and another matter [2015] SGCA 59
Court DecisionSGCA
[2015] SGCA 59
[2015] SGCA 59
Court of Appeal of Singapore25 Nov 2015Civil Appeal No 201 of 2014 and Summons No 263 of 2015
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 9 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
9Later cases and laws citing this decision
“affirmed that all powers are subject to legal limits. In Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525, [1988] SGCA 16, para. 86; Tan Seet Eng v. Attorney- General [2016] 1 SLR 779, [2015] SGCA 59, paras 1-2.), the courts held thus: "under the law, the AG's discretionary power is not absolute and he mu”
“affirmed that all powers are subject to legal limits. In Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525, [1988] SGCA 16, para. 86; Tan Seet Eng v. Attorney- General [2016] 1 SLR 779, [2015] SGCA 59, paras 1-2.), the courts held thus: "under the law, the AG's discretionary power is not absolute and he mu”
“y affirmed that all powers are subject to legal limits. In Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525, [1988] SGCA 16, para. 86; Tan Seet Eng v. Attorney-General [2016] 1 SLR 779, [2015] SGCA 59, paras 1-2.), the courts held thus: "under the law, the AG's discretionary power is not absolute and he m”
“r because as a result misconstruing the provisions of the Act”. [34] On the approach adopted by Chung Suan Tze, the Court of Appeal of Singapore in Tan Seet Eng v. Attorney-General and another matter [2015] SGCA 59 had this to say at paras 98 and 99 – “98. It is true that Chng Suan Tze was subsequently legislatively ov”
“ly affirmed that all powers are subject to legal limits. In Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs [1988] 2 SLR (R) 525, [1988] SGCA 16, para. 86; Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General [2016] 1 SLR 779, [2015] SGCA 59, paras 1-2.), the courts held thus: “under the law, the AG’s discretionary power is not absolute and he m”
Show 4 moreShow fewer
“n as the principle that Parliament has exclusive cognizance (jurisdiction) over its own affairs.” (Emphasis added) 18 Appeal in Singapore in Tan Seet Eng v. Attorney General & another matter [2015] SGCA 59 (at [90] and [106]):- “We began this judgment by observing that the specific responsibility for pronouncing on the”
“n as the principle that Parliament has exclusive cognizance (jurisdiction) over its own affairs.” (Emphasis added) 18 Appeal in Singapore in Tan Seet Eng v. Attorney General & another matter [2015] SGCA 59 (at [90] and [106]):- “We began this judgment by observing that the specific responsibility for pronouncing on the”
“dly affirmed that all powers are subject to legal limits. In Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525, [1988] SGCA 16, para. 86; Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General [2016] 1 SLR 779, [2015] SGCA 59, paras 1–2.), the Courts held thus: “under the law, the AG’S discretionary power is not absolute and he m”
“nnot be excluded and this according to counsel is established by Indira Gandhi when it cited with approval the Singapore Court of Appeal decision in Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General and another matter [2015] SGCA 59. [179] Counsel is right, of course, but only where the law in question is contrary to the terms of the Fe”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Civil Appeal No 201 of 2014 and Summons No 263 of 2015
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-11-25
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.