← All Authorities
Singapore judicial reviewconstitutional

The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v Attorney-General

[2020] 2 SLR 1358
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore High Court
Year2020
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Singapore High Court considered POFMA correction directions and the distinction between statements of fact and opinion in judicial review proceedings.

Key Principle

POFMA; correction direction; judicial review; meaning of 'statement of fact' vs opinion

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 The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v Attorney-General and how it applies to your situation.

Explain The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v A...