What Judicial Review Is (and What It Is Not)
When a Singapore government agency makes a decision that hurts your company, such as ACRA striking your company off the register, MOM refusing or revoking a work pass, a licensing authority rejecting a renewal, or a tax authority taking a procedurally flawed decision, your first instinct is usually to appeal. In many cases, a statutory appeal route exists and should be used first. But where no such route exists, or where it has been exhausted, Singapore law provides a separate and more limited remedy: judicial review.
Judicial review is the process by which the High Court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction over public bodies, including government agencies, statutory boards and other bodies performing public functions. It allows the court to examine whether a decision was made lawfully, fairly and rationally.
It is critical to understand what judicial review is not. It is not a second look at the merits of the decision. The court will not substitute its own view of the facts for that of the agency, and it will not ask “was this the right decision?” Instead, it asks “was this decision made the right way?” A judicial review can succeed even if the underlying decision might have been reasonable on the facts, if the process by which it was reached was flawed. Conversely, an applicant who simply disagrees with the outcome, without pointing to a defect in the decision-making process, will not succeed.
This distinction matters enormously for directors and business owners. If your company disagrees with how much tax has been assessed, the correct route is usually a statutory objection or appeal to the relevant tribunal, not judicial review. Judicial review becomes relevant when the complaint is that the agency acted outside its powers, followed an unfair process, failed to consider relevant matters, or breached a promise it had made to your company.
Legal Basis: The Statute and the Rules
Judicial review in Singapore is governed procedurally by Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2021, which took effect on 1 April 2022 and replaced the former Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2014. Order 24 sets out how an application for a Mandatory Order, a Prohibiting Order or a Quashing Order (the modern names for the old prerogative writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari) is to be brought before the High Court, including the requirement to first obtain the court’s permission.
Where the dispute involves the Government directly (as opposed to a statutory board that is a separate legal entity from the Government), procedural and substantive matters relating to suing the state are also affected by the Government Proceedings Act 1956, which governs how civil proceedings against the Government are instituted and what remedies are available against it.
Substantively, Singapore courts assess judicial review applications against three established grounds, developed through case law over several decades:
- Illegality: the decision-maker did not have the legal power it purported to exercise, acted for an improper purpose, ignored relevant considerations, took into account irrelevant ones, or fettered its own discretion by rigidly applying a policy without considering individual circumstances.
- Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness): the decision is so unreasonable that no sensible decision-maker could have arrived at it, applying the long-standing “Wednesbury” standard from English administrative law that Singapore courts have adopted and applied.
- Procedural impropriety: the agency failed to follow a statutory procedure it was required to observe, breached the rules of natural justice (such as bias or a failure to give a fair hearing), or failed to honour a legitimate expectation it had created, whether through an express representation or a consistent past practice.
These grounds are not always neatly separated in practice, and a single set of facts may raise more than one. A Singapore Advocate and Solicitor experienced in administrative law will be able to assess which grounds genuinely apply to your company’s circumstances.
Who Can Apply: Companies as Applicants
A company, like an individual, may apply for judicial review, but it must first establish “sufficient interest” in the matter. Broadly, this means the company must show:
- A real interest in the outcome, rather than being a mere busybody with no genuine stake in the decision.
- A real controversy between the company and the agency for the court to resolve, rather than a hypothetical or academic dispute.
- That the right affected is personal to the company, whether a private right (such as the right to continue operating under a licence it holds) or a public right in which it has a special interest beyond that of the general public.
Two further threshold requirements commonly trip up company applicants. First, the decision must be “amenable” to judicial review, meaning it must have a public law character, generally because the power exercised derives from statute or because the function performed is a public one. Second, and most importantly for companies, judicial review is a remedy of last resort. The company must generally have exhausted any statutory appeal mechanism available to it before turning to the court, save in exceptional circumstances. If your industry regulator, ACRA, or MOM provides an internal review or appeal process, that route should ordinarily be attempted first.
Directors considering this route for a company facing an ACRA strike-off or restoration refusal should also note that some statutes contain “ouster clauses” purporting to exclude judicial review of certain decisions entirely. Decisions relating to the issuing, suspension or revocation of work passes under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, for example, are subject to such a clause, though the courts have held that even where an ouster clause applies, an agency must still comply with basic procedural fairness. If your company is weighing a challenge to a work pass decision, this is a threshold issue to raise with your lawyer at the outset, since it may significantly narrow the available grounds.
Step-by-Step Process
Stage 1: Permission (Formerly “Leave”)
A company cannot go straight to a full hearing. It must first apply, without notice to the agency, for the High Court’s permission to bring a judicial review application. This permission application must be supported by a statement setting out the applicant’s details, the relief sought and the grounds relied upon, together with an affidavit verifying the facts.
The court will only grant permission if it is satisfied that: the subject matter is genuinely susceptible to judicial review; the company has sufficient interest as described above; and the company has a plausible, arguable case on the evidence. This is a filtering stage designed to weed out hopeless or premature applications before the agency is put to the expense of defending the full claim.
Stage 2: The Substantive Hearing
If permission is granted, the company must then file its substantive application (by way of summons) within 14 days, failing which the permission granted lapses. The originating application, supporting statement, affidavit and the order granting permission must then be served on the agency and any other directly affected parties. At the substantive hearing, the company may only rely on the grounds and relief set out in its original statement, unless the court permits an amendment.
Remedies the Court May Grant
If the company succeeds, the High Court may grant one or more of the following remedies:
- Quashing Order: sets aside the agency’s decision entirely, so it no longer has legal effect.
- Prohibiting Order: forbids the agency from proceeding with, or repeating, an unlawful act or decision.
- Mandatory Order: compels the agency to perform a public duty it has unlawfully failed or refused to perform.
- Declaration: a formal statement of the parties’ respective legal rights and obligations, without necessarily quashing or compelling anything.
Note that under the Rules of Court 2021’s general framework, an applicant should also consider, at the outset with counsel, whether the dispute might be more appropriately or efficiently resolved through the general originating application procedure under Order 5 before committing to the elective Order 24 judicial review route, since the choice of procedure can affect timelines and costs.
Documents Required
| Document | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Originating application (without notice) | Commences the permission stage before the High Court |
| Supporting statement | Sets out the applicant’s name and description, the relief sought and the grounds relied on |
| Supporting affidavit | Verifies the facts relied on in the statement, sworn by a company representative with knowledge of the matter |
| Copy of the impugned decision | The written decision, notice, letter or determination issued by the agency being challenged |
| Correspondence with the agency | Evidence of any internal appeal, representations made, or exhaustion of alternative remedies |
| Company constitutional documents and board resolution | Confirms the company’s standing and authorises the proceedings to be brought in its name |
| Order granting permission | Filed and served at the substantive stage together with the summons |
Timeline and Costs
| Stage | Indicative Timeframe |
|---|---|
| Time limit to apply for permission | Must be made promptly, and generally not later than three months from the date the grounds for the application first arose, unless the court allows an extension for good reason |
| Permission (leave) stage | Typically a few weeks, decided on the papers or at a short hearing without notice to the agency |
| Filing the substantive summons after permission is granted | Within 14 days, failing which permission lapses |
| Service on the agency and affected parties | Shortly after the substantive summons is filed |
| Substantive hearing | Several months from filing, depending on the court’s schedule and complexity of the issues |
| Possible appeal | An additional several months if either side appeals to the Court of Appeal |
Costs vary considerably depending on the complexity of the grounds raised and whether the matter is contested at every stage, but companies should budget for legal fees covering both the permission stage and, if permission is granted, the substantive hearing, plus a costs order that may be made against the losing party. Given the strict and largely non-extendable time limit, a company should not delay in seeking legal advice once an adverse agency decision is received. This is also a useful moment to check your company’s broader compliance position; our compliance calendar sets out the recurring ACRA, IRAS, CPF and MOM deadlines that can otherwise compound a dispute with a regulator.
What Happens After the Order
A successful judicial review does not necessarily mean your company gets the outcome it wanted. In most cases, a Quashing Order simply sets aside the flawed decision and sends the matter back to the agency (remittal) for the decision to be retaken, this time following the correct process. Because judicial review addresses process rather than merits, it is entirely possible for the agency, having corrected the procedural defect, to arrive at the same substantive outcome on a proper reconsideration. This is an important expectation to manage with your board and stakeholders before commencing proceedings.
Either party may appeal a decision on a judicial review application to the Court of Appeal, Singapore’s apex court, so a first-instance win or loss at the High Court is not always the final word. Companies should factor the possibility of an appeal, and the further time and cost this entails, into their overall litigation strategy from the outset.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my company use judicial review instead of a statutory appeal?
Generally no. Judicial review is a remedy of last resort. If a statutory appeal or internal review process is available, whether to a tribunal, minister, or the agency itself, that route should ordinarily be used first. The court will usually decline permission where an adequate alternative remedy has not been exhausted.
How quickly must my company act?
Promptly, and in any event generally within three months of the date the grounds for the application first arose. Waiting to see how other matters unfold, or delaying while pursuing informal negotiations with the agency, can be fatal to an otherwise valid application, so early legal advice is essential.
Is judicial review the same as suing the Government for damages?
No. Judicial review is concerned with the lawfulness of a decision and the remedies of a quashing order, prohibiting order, mandatory order or declaration. Claims for damages against the Government are a separate matter and are also affected by the Government Proceedings Act 1956, which governs how civil proceedings against the state are brought.
Can a decision under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act be judicially reviewed?
Decisions of the Minister for Manpower and the Controller of Work Passes on issuing, suspending or revoking work passes are subject to a statutory ouster clause that significantly limits judicial review. Even so, the courts have indicated that basic procedural fairness must still be observed. This is a highly fact-specific area and should be assessed by a lawyer before any application is filed.
What if my company just disagrees with an ACRA or tax decision on the facts?
If the complaint is purely about the correctness of the outcome rather than how it was reached, judicial review is unlikely to be the right tool. A merits-based disagreement is better addressed through the applicable statutory objection or appeal process specific to that agency.
Will winning a judicial review guarantee my company gets what it originally wanted?
Not necessarily. The usual outcome is that the flawed decision is quashed and sent back to the agency to be retaken properly, which may or may not produce a different result. Judicial review corrects process, not outcomes.
Need Help With This Matter?
If your company is facing this situation, Raffles Corporate Services can assist with the groundwork, including ACRA filings, compliance documentation, and coordinating with experienced Singapore law firms. For matters requiring court proceedings, we work with a panel of experienced Singapore law firms who offer cost-effective and efficient legal service and advice.
Email: [email protected]
Call, SMS or WhatsApp: +65 8501 7133
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified Singapore Advocate and Solicitor.
The Editorial Team, Raffles Corporate Services