← All Authorities
Singapore convention rightsgrounds illegalityrule of law

Lim Tean v Attorney-General

[2020] SGHC 108
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore High Court
Year2020
StatusBinding authority

Summary

POFMA correction directions held constitutional; restrictions on false statements of fact justified by public interest in preventing misinformation and do not unconstitutionally curtail freedom of speech.

Key Principle

POFMA correction directions; constitutionality of fake news law; freedom of speech vs public interest in preventing misinformation

Area of Law

constitutional

Related Cases

NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 97 ALJR 1005

Indefinite administrative detention of a non-citizen with no real prospect of removal is unlawful as punitive and contrary to Ch III of the Australian Constitution, overruling Al-Kateb v Godwin.

Farm Transparency International v NSW (2022) 276 CLR 81

HCA upheld NSW ag-gag laws as valid notwithstanding a burden on the implied freedom of political communication, applying the structured proportionality test.

Palmer v Western Australia (2021) 272 CLR 505

HCA upheld WA COVID-19 border closure legislation as valid under s.92, finding restrictions on interstate movement were reasonably necessary and proportionate to protect public health.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Lim Tean v Attorney-General and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Lim Tean v Attorney-General