A precedent is a principle or a rule settled in an earlier legal case. The legal case that is settled becomes binding on the Court or other tribunal or district courts when taking decisions in similar cases having similar issues and facts. The common law system of legal principles lays great value when taking decisions according to consistent rules so that similar facts can serve similar outcomes. The principle by which Judges are bound by the precedents is known as stare decisis. Precedent is a rule of law that is settled by the Court for the first time by a Court for any given case or when deciding similar cases.
In the given case of PP v. Loo Kun Long, the decision taken by Justice Yong is also a valuable decision that can serve as a binding precedent. In the given case, the Court rejected the literal interpretation of a statute stating that there is absurdity and anomaly if the District Judge would have followed the literal interpretation. As per the literal interpretation the hands of the Courts would have been tied in sentencing as it would only be able to impose a fixed fine of 1000 dollars each obscene film. The language used for Section 30 subsection 2 is not clear and problems may take place interpreting 1000 dollars as the maximum fine. The application of 1000 dollars as maximum fine seemed to be inconsistent with the rest of section 30 that allows the Court to use their discretion making it mandatory minimum fine for all offences in case of obscene films. Thus, anytime in the future if a similar case comes up before the District Judge regarding possession of obscene films then the given case can be used as a precedent by other Courts.
In the opinion of Justice Yong, both the District Judge and the DPP rightly adopted the interpretation of section 30 subsection 2 that is, it gives the court to use the discretionary power to impose a fine of not less than 1000 dollars per film however the aggregate should not exceed more than 40 thousand dollars. The district Judge had rightfully rejected adoption to literal interpretation of the section. In the opinion of the district Judge there was ambiguity in the application of the given section as the hands of the Court would be tied up in announcing a fixed fine of thousand dollars per film. However, an additional issue was related to the given section, that is, whether one thousand dollars shall be the maximum or minimum fine that the Court may impose in exercise of its discretionary power. As the language of section 30 subsection 2 is very ambiguous thus problems may take place in declaring one thousand dollars as maximum or minimum fine.
Therefore, Justice Yong decided that the object of the given section should be fulfilled abiding the Interpretation Act, 1997. Since the words of section 30 leads to ambiguity and confusion in its literal sense thus the Judge took into consideration section 9A (2) (b) along with section 9 (3)(d) of the Interpretation Act. As per the speech delivered by the Minister for Information and the Arts, the Minister clearly doubled the minimum fine from 500 to 1000 dollars up to to a maximum of forty thousand dollars for possession of obscene films. It for the above mentioned reasons the Judge declared the penalty of 1000 dollars per film for possessing obscene films.
Section 30 of the Films Act, 1998, had three possible interpretations to the phrase “shall be liable to a fine of thousand dollars for each such film.” The first interpretation was that a fixed quantum of one thousand dollars should be imposed and second a maximum fine of one thousand dollars may be imposed and third the minimum fine that may be imposed is one thousand dollars. While imposing a fine on Loo, the district Judge resorted to the second interpretation and imposed one thousand dollars per film. The Judge provided an explanation that he was influenced by the expression “shall be liable” does not have not any mandatory meaning to the phrase. The Judge relied on the decisions taken of the High Court in the case of PP v. Lee Soon Lee Vincent and Chng Gim Huat v. PP. However, the Judge was later convinced that the second interpretation was not right and after further research he agree with the opinion of the DPP that in reality that the third interpretation was the correct interpretation. In the opinion of Justice Yong, the interpretation adopted by both the DPP as well as the District Judge was rightfully adopted that section 30 of the Films Act gives the power to the Court to use his discretionary power and impose a fine of at least one thousand dollars and on average should not exceed forty thousand dollars. Justice Yong had also referred to the same decision as used by the District Judge to come to the conclusion that the second interpretation, that is, one thousand dollar for each obscene film.
Additionally, Yong CJ also took extrinsic aid for interpreting the given section as the section contained ambiguous words, the meaning of which was not clear. In the opinion of Judge Yong, the District Judge had rightfully rejected the literal interpretation of the section. Furthermore, he also held that due to ambiguity and absurdity in the words of the given section, the hands of the Court would be tied in announcing only a fixed fine one thousand dollars. Thus, the given interpretation would be inconsistent with the direction taken by the draftsman. When there is ambiguity in the language of the law, an interpretation that would help in promotion of the underlying object of the section shall be taken into consideration. This is explained in section 9A (1) of the Interpretation Act, 1997. As there was ambiguity in the given section, the Judge took into consideration the real object for which the given section was established. Secondly, Judge Yong also took into consideration the intention of Parliament other than the underlying object of the given section. In the speech delivered by the Minister for Information and the Arts, the Minister doubled the minimum fine of 500 dollars to one thousand rule per film. Thus, Yong CJ changed the fine that was imposed by the accused and made it three thousand dollars in total, that is, 1000 dollars per film.
A precedent is a principle or a rule settled in an earlier legal case. The legal case that is settled becomes binding on the Court or other tribunal or district courts when taking decisions in similar cases having similar issues and facts. The common law system of legal principles lays great value when taking decisions according to consistent rules so that similar facts can serve similar outcomes. The principle by which Judges are bound by the precedents is known as stare decisis. Precedent is a rule of law that is settled by the Court for the first time by a Court for any given case or when deciding similar cases.
In the given case law as well, the decision taken by CJ Yong and others can serve as a binding precedent in case any question to possessing the property was concerned. In the given case, Tan was the appellant. The respondent in the given case was Lee. In the year 1983, the house that was transferred to Tan by way of gift deed and Tan’s father as well as Lee continue to stay at the property. In the year 1987, the father of the appellant executed a deed between Tan and Lee as per which Lee would continue to remain in occupation of the house. However, sometime later Tan wanted to evict Lee from the given property by serving her two notices to quit. Lee did not wanted to vacate the property stating that she was entitled to remain inside the property for the duration of her life. Tan started her proceedings against Lee to vacate the given property and failure to comply with the orders of Tan, it would lead to trespass. The district Court held that as per the words of the deed Lee could continue possession of the given property as she had a contractual license to occupy the property. Tan had appealed against the decision however, the appeal was dismissed.
The ratio of the given case Tan Hin Leong v. Lee Teck Im was that the father had previous intentions to provide Lee a place of residence and it was for this reason why he had executed a contractual deed between his son and Lee. Moreover, Tan was very much aware of the given circumstances at the time when the deed was executed. Lee had a contractual license to occupy the property. The license was the creation by way of contract and the terms of occupancy are clearly stated. The license was limited by the lifetime of Lee and Tan could terminate the same only in the presence of certain circumstances. In all other remaining licenses, the license could not be terminated. The Court would provide legal effect to the intention of the parties in contract as it was clearly expressed in the deed. Any term leading to termination by notice could not become applicable into the deed as it would be against the words of the deed. The license would lapse only on the death of Lee. Thus, based on the above-mentioned points the case was decided and the appeal for the same was also dismissed.
The following cases were referred to while taking the decision of Tan Hin Leong v. Lee Teck Im:
All the above-mentioned case laws that were used as precedents contained similar facts regarding occupancy based on contractual license. In the case of Tanner v. Tanner, the Court of Appeal held that the defendant purchased the house in hope that it would provide a home for his daughters and the defendant. The Court made the decision in favor of the defendant and the twin daughter. In the case of Binions v. Evans, the Country Court held that the plaintiff had occupancy of the cottage on trust and the defendant had full right to continue occupancy in the given place. In the case of Chandler v. Kerley also, the Court of Appeal held that Mrs K shall have the contractual license to occupy the property till lifetime. In the case of Anchor Butter Co Ltd v. Tui Foods Ltd, as well the court held that defendant should continue his occupancy over the given land.
From the perspective of interpretation exercise, the Court of Appeal had taken into consideration the interpretation of the contract that was executed between the Lee and Tan. As per the words of the contract, the defendant shall have the authority to continue with the occupancy of the given place until she dies or if she breaches any of the terms of the contract. In the given case, neither did Lee die nor did she breach any of the terms of the contract thus, her occupancy on the given property shall continue and it cannot be terminated at the whim and will of the plaintiff.
References:
Agarwal, Sumit, et al. “Strategic Sequential Bidding for Government Land Auction Sales–Evidence from Singapore.” (2016).
Bray, Judith. Unlocking land law. Routledge, 2016.
Green, Jonathon, and Nicholas J. Karolides. Encyclopedia of censorship. Infobase Publishing, 2014.
Haila, Anne. Urban land rent: Singapore as a property state. John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
Haila, Anne. Urban land rent: Singapore as a property state. John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
Hudalah, Delik, Haryo Winarso, and Johan Woltjer. “Gentrifying the peri-urban: Land use conflicts and institutional dynamics at the frontier of an Indonesian metropolis.” Urban Studies 53.3 (2016): 593-608.
Law, Aviation. “SINGAPORE INDEX TO LAW JOURNAL ARTICLES–2015.” Space 50 (2015): 275.
Morse, Geoffrey. “Law of partnerships in Singapore including LLP and LP [Book Review].” Singapore Journal of Legal Studies Mar 2016 (2016): 216.
Penner, James. The law of trusts. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Saw, Tiong Guan. Film Censorship in the Asia-Pacific Region: Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Australia Compared. Vol. 15. Routledge, 2013.
Seng, Loh Kah, and Kenneth Paul Tan. “3 Convergence and slippage between film and history.” Singapore Cinema: New Perspectives (2016).
Tan, Godwin. “Is Pornography Merely Obscene: Feminist Perspectives on the Regulation of Pornography.” UK L. Student Rev. 5 (2017): 97.
Tan, Kwoh-Jack. “Blogging Singapore: Control and Excess between Offline and Online Worlds.” State, Society and Information Technology in Asia: Alterity Between Online and Offline Politics (2016): 69.
Tan, Kwoh-Jack. “Blogging Singapore: Control and Excess between Offline and Online Worlds.” State, Society and Information Technology in Asia: Alterity Between Online and Offline Politics (2016): 69.
Teo, Keang Sood. “Land law.” Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases 2014 (2014): 425.
Thong, Chee Kun, and Muslim Albakri. “Anti-Corruption Enforcement in Singapore.” Finance, Rule of Law and Development in Asia: Perspectives from Singapore, Hong Kong and Mainland China (2016
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download
