Top 10 Legal Cases All Singaporean Law Students Should Know

Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General [2012] SGCA 45
This case confirmed that individuals have standing to challenge laws affecting them personally, even if no prosecution is underway. Tan Eng Hong challenged Section 377A of the Penal Code, criminalising male homosexual acts. The Court of Appeal held he had sufficient interest for a constitutional challenge. This case is significant for access to justice, human rights litigation, and the scope of judicial review in Singapore.

Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing [2016] SGCA 21
This case concerned discretion in imposing the death penalty for murder. The Court clarified when capital punishment is appropriate under amended sentencing laws. The judgment outlined the principle of finality in criminal appeals, stating that repeated applications to re-open cases should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. It is crucial for criminal procedure, sentencing, and legal certainty in capital cases.

Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General [2011] SGCA 26
British writer Alan Shadrake was convicted of scandalising the judiciary for publishing a book criticising Singapore’s judiciary. The Court of Appeal affirmed the offence but clarified the test for contempt: whether statements posed a real risk of undermining public confidence in the judiciary. This case balances freedom of expression with protection of judicial authority, and is key for understanding contempt laws in Singapore.

Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor [1981] AC 648 (PC)
A Privy Council decision (when Singapore still accepted its jurisdiction), it upheld mandatory death penalties for drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. However, it established that laws must not violate natural justice and that "law" in Article 9(1) of the Constitution implies fair procedures. Though Singapore now no longer accepts Privy Council rulings, this case influenced the development of constitutional protections and due process principles.

Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs [2006] SGHC 195
Chee and others challenged police action during a peaceful protest. The High Court ruled that Article 14 rights (speech, assembly, association) are not absolute, and subject to restrictions for public order. The case is notable for defining the limits of civil liberties, emphasising Singapore’s approach of balancing rights with societal interests, especially in public order and national security contexts.

Attorney-General v Wain [1991] 1 SLR(R) 85
This case involved the publication of "The Hatchet Man of Singapore", criticising government officials. The Court ruled that qualified privilege did not protect the journalist because there was no duty to publish or interest in receiving the information. This decision shaped media law, especially regarding defamation and the limits of press freedom, reinforcing that public interest does not automatically override reputational rights.

Re Judith Prakash [1995] 3 SLR(R) 341
In this disciplinary case, the Court clarified standards of professional conduct expected of lawyers, affirming that advocates and solicitors must act with integrity and diligence. The ruling emphasised the Court’s role in maintaining public confidence in the legal profession, highlighting ethical obligations, especially regarding client relations, honesty, and competence. This case remains central to legal ethics education in Singapore.

City Developments Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax [1996] SGCA 56
The Court of Appeal addressed tax deduction eligibility for property developers, adopting a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, aligned with Section 9A of the Interpretation Act. This case signalled a shift from literal readings to considering Parliament’s intent, influencing how courts interpret legislation across various legal fields, not just tax law. It remains a touchstone for statutory construction in Singapore.

Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525
The Court of Appeal ruled that executive discretion under the Internal Security Act (ISA) is subject to objective judicial review, not merely subjective satisfaction. Although Parliament later amended the law to reverse this ruling, the case is foundational for administrative law, showing the judiciary’s willingness to review executive power, particularly on matters affecting individual liberty.

Turf Club Auto Emporium v Yeo Boong Hua [2018] SGCA 44
The Court of Appeal clarified the doctrine of rectification, affirming that courts can correct written contracts to reflect common intention, even in complex commercial deals. The Court reinforced the need for clear and convincing evidence of a mutual mistake. This case is a leading authority on contract formation, interpretation, and equitable remedies, especially relevant in commercial law.