User:YanlinggGuo/sandbox

General rule
The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies can be regarded as one aspect of prematurity. This doctrine requires an applicant to resort to other remedies such as a statutory appeal process before applying for judicial review. The High Court is justified in not permitting judicial review proceedings until the applicant has exhausted all other remedies.

Borissik Svetlana v. Urban Redevelopment Authority (2009) stated that as a general rule, “a person seeking judicial review of a decision by a public body must exhaust all alternative remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of the court for judicial review.” In Borissik, the court held that it was not proper for it to interfere as Section 22 of the Planning Act expressly provides for an appeal to be made to the Minister of National Development should the applicant be aggrieved by the decision of the Urban Redevelopment Authority. The applicant in Borissik had failed to make use of the appeal procedures.

There are a few policy reasons for the rule. First, the Singapore High Court in Borissik justified the rule on the basis that Parliament, by providing an appeal procedure, intended that courts should not interfere with issues of planning permission. This is in line with the idea that courts should not usurp the functions of the appellate body. Second, the court also indicated that the planning issues in that case involved a multitude of considerations were better dealt with by an appeal to the relevant Minister. This view is supported by Clive Lewis, who argued that appellate bodies may have more expertise in the area, as well as a greater ability to re-hear evidence and determine questions of fact. For instance, industrial tribunals are better equipped to deal with industrial issues.

Exceptions in the UK
Glidewell L.J. in Ex parte Waldron (1985) suggests that judicial review can be granted even when an alternative remedy is available. In particular, the court should take into account factors like “[w]hether the alternative statutory remedy will resolve the question at issue fully and directly; whether the statutory procedure would be quicker, or slower, than procedure by way of judicial review; whether the matter depends on some particular or technical knowledge which is more readily available to the alternative appellate body”. The court in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Swati (1986) emphasized that only in the “most exceptional circumstances” where an applicant can distinguish his case from the type of case for which the appeal procedure was provided, may judicial review be allowed although alternative remedies have not been exhausted.

The speediness of the alternative remedy was in issue in R. v. Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police, ex parte Calveley (1968). The English Court of Appeal allowed for judicial review even though there was an alternative right of appeal provided by Section 37 of the Police Act 1964 (UK). The Court of Appeal considered that the alternative remedy provided was not speedy enough. May L.J., however, emphasized that the mere fact that the alternative remedy is not as effective or as convenient is not sufficient for the court to grant judicial review.

Another possible exception is in cases where the appellate body provided has limited powers. In the case of Leech v. Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison (1988), two prisoners had lost their remission because of the deputy governor’s findings that they were guilty of a disciplinary offence. The prisoners wished to challenge these findings. A petition to the Secretary of State was available, but the Secretary only had powers to remit the punishment. The Secretary could not quash the findings of guilt, thus the prisoners sought judicial review to do so. Judicial review was allowed because a petition to the Secretary would be inadequate. A person who saw the prisoner’s record would only see that the punishment awarded for the offence has been cancelled, but would not know if the findings of guilt had been quashed. The prisoner may be prejudiced.

Heading 1
This is how to create a heading. This is the text that goes under the heading.

This is how to italicize.

This is how to bold.

This is how to bold and italicize.

When you type like that it is actually one line.

Linking other Wiki articles
This is how to link a Wikipedia article

This is how to pipe a link to a Wikipedia article. i.e. make it appear differently than the article name

This is how to link to a section in a Wikipedia article. Citing Wikipedia

To create a plural of Wikipedias, do this. (only if 's' is at the end of the Wikipedia article name)

To prevent disambiguation, type Michael Palmer (politician)

Creating external links
To create a link that shows up as a number,

To create a link with a name, Parliament of Singapore

Creating bulleted lists

 * This is a first item in a bulleted list
 * This is a subbullet
 * This is another subbullet


 * 1) This is a first item in a numbered list
 * 2) This is the numbered sub-list.


 * This is the first item
 * Numbered list within the original bulleted list
 * Second item

Quotations
This is a quote:

"I am the quote. Quote me!!"

This is the normal paragraph

Creating a table
In the toolbox, click on advanced. and click the table sign. then the template will come out.

Images






Messaging others
HI there!
 * Hi this is my reply
 * oooh this is my reply to your reply

to start a new conversation. remember to sign off this way: YanlinggGuo (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

=Article Layout=

Lead section
Summary of the whole article

Main text
This is a sentence containing certain information. And here is another sentence.

This is a sentence with a footnote I want to duplicate.

If I want to refer back to the duplicated footnote, I just have to do this.

I can do it again. .

Dont use the duplicated footnotes if the pinpoint citiation is different. just. (put footnote after punctuate)

"""Rule of thumb: One footnote after every paragraph."""