Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

12-2008

Abstract

The law on apparent bias has been mired in some controversy following the High Court decision of Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni, where Sundaresh Menon J.C. seemingly departed from the tentative views of Andrew Phang J.C. (as he then was) in Tang Kin Hwa v. Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board on the issue of whether there were any material differences between the “reasonable suspicion of bias” test and the “real likelihood of bias” test, the two formulations of the test for apparent bias that have been variously adopted by different jurisdictions in the common law world. In Tang Kin Hwa, Phang J.C. expressed his tentative view that there are no practical or conceptual differences between the two tests, warning against the dangers of “semantic hairsplitting”. Sundaresh Menon J.C., on the other hand, took a different view in Re Shankar, holding that “there are indeed some important differences between [the two tests]”, and that the “reasonable suspicion of bias” test was the applicable law in Singapore “for good reason”.

Keywords

Administrative law, Bias

Discipline

Asian Studies | Courts | Judges | Public Law and Legal Theory

Publication

Singapore Journal of Legal Studies

Volume

2008

Issue

2

First Page

446

Last Page

454

ISSN

0218-2173

Publisher

National University of Singapore Faculty of Law

Copyright Owner and License

Authors

Download

Share

COinS