| Basic information | Substance of the ruling | Accessibility of the case and further relevant links | |||||||
| Date | Name of the case (or case number) | The body delivering the decision | Keywords, topic | Executive part | Brief summary | Full text | Page at the website of the issuing court | Page in other databases | Unofficial materials, press communications |
| June 16. 2022. | 2022] SGHC 141. | High Court of Singapore | Labor law; vaccination; discrimination | The High Court of Singapore rejected to hear a challenge against a governmental directive to recommend for employers to suspend the labor contract of non-vaccinated employees, and for the social security authorities to not cover the medical costs of non-vaccinated persons. | During the public health emergency, the Government of Singapore issued several directives to tackle the public health concerns. Amongst others, a governmental directive recommended for employers to suspend the labor contract of those employees who would reject vaccination against the virus. Apart from this, a governmental policy was also established that the medical expenses of non-vaccinated Covid-19 patients should not be covered by the social security system. A request for judicial review was submitted which was dismissed by the High Court as unfounded. The High Court noted, that governmental directives do not constitute normative legal acts with binding force, these are just orientations for the authorities. As a consequence, a proper decision subject to constitutional review is missing, therefore, the submission was dismissed. | https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2022_SGHC_141 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/singapore-high-court-general-division-no-sghc-141-2022-06-16 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2022/06/singapore-court-dismisses-claims-against-measures-allowing-termination-employment-and | |
| February 8. 2022. | [2021] SGHC 31 | High Court of Singapore | Right to life; rights of prisoners; discrimination | The High Court of Singapore dismissed a request to postpone the scheduled execution of a Singapore citizen on the ground that the execution of foreign citizens were delayed. However, the High Court noted, that by general terms, the differential treatment of Singapore and foreign citizens may cause discriminatory effects. | The High Court of Singapore heard a claim of a person subject to capital punishment, to reschedule his execution in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic. The claimant, a Singapore citizen argued, that executions of foreign people were delayed to allow their family members to visit them before their death despite the virus concerns, therefore, the execution of capital punishments on Singapore citizens amounts to a discriminatory practice. The High Court argued that the submission failed to show any evidence of discrimination, since only one execution of a foreign person was rescheduled, but in that case, still pending remedies might concern the final outcome of that proceeding. However, in the peresent case, the judgment was final, so no compelling reason underlined the discriminative character of the impugned practice. However, the High Court also added, that by general terms, the differential treatment of Singapore and foreign citizens may amount to discrimination, since Singapore citizens would probably contact with their families more easily, therefore, their execution would be prioritized vis a vis the execution of foreign persons. | https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2021_SGHC_31 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/singapore-high-court-syed-suhail-bin-syed-zin-v-attorney-general-2021-sghc-31-2021-02-08 | ||
| February 8. 2022. | 2022. SGHC 54. | High Court of Singapore | Right to a fair trial | The High Court of Singapore held that in the light of the global recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, the blind citation of the public health emergency shall not be sufficient anymore to justify requests of online testimony, the applicant shall also demonstrate that due to other illnesses, he/she belongs to a vulnerable group seriously threatened by the potential risks of a journey. | The High Court of Singapore heard the appellation of a woman who was denied to testify virtually ina a court proceeding despite her arguments based on the public health circumstances. The High Court argued that the lady just provided a general reference on the global health circumstances, however, in the light of the more favourable circumstances, such a general citation shall not be sufficient anymore. The applicant should demonstrate that in the particular case, due to other serious illnesses, the journey would cause significant healt risk for the applicant. | https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2022_SGHC_54 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2022/03/singapore-high-court-rejects-request-testify-remotely-due-covid-19-pandemic | https://eoasis.rajahtann.com/eoasis/lu/pdf/2022_03_Guidance_evidence_video.pdf | |
| July 6. 2020. | UYK v UYJ 2020] SGHCF 9. | Singapore High Court | Right to privacy; rights of children | The High Court of Singapore upheld a lower court ruling allowing for a mother to relocate her children to London despite the implications caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. | Two British citizen living either in Monaco and London had a relationship with each other, and a child was born from this. The mother and the father agreed to move to Singapore to live there together, however, in the case of breaking the relationship, they agreed in writing that the mother should move to London with the child, but proper access to the child should be provided for the father. When their relationship deteriorated, the mother moved to London and refused to return to Singapore, also rejected the access request of the father. The British courts ordered the mother to return to Singapore and then to wait the ruling of the Singapore courts. The Father then turned to the Singapore courts, but the lower courts dismissed his claim and allowed for the mother to relocate the children to London. The father also argued that the Covid-19 pandemic raised additional difficulties to ensure his access to the child in London, but this argument was also rejected. The High Court of Singapore upheld the lower court ruling and considered that the mother should relocate her children to London despite of the travel restrictions imposed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. | https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2020_SGHCF_9 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/singapore-singapore-high-court-family-division-uyk-v-uyj-2020-sghcf-9-2020-5-slr-772 | ||
| June 29. 2020. | No. 2020 SGCA 60. | Singapore Court of Appeal | Right to vote | The Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed a claim against holding advance parliamentary elections in July 2020. despite the extraordinary circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic. | The Parliament of Singapore dissolved itself and ordered to hold an early elections on July 10. 2020. The applicant immediately submitted a claim for constitutional review to the High Court of Singapore to block the organisation of the early elections. The High Court dismissed the claim, which was also upheld by the supreme division of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal. The claimant argued that the holding of early elections during the public health emergency would be discriminatory for the opposition and would result in an unfair electoral process. Moreover, people living abroad would face with additional difficulties to take part in the elections, while the electoral staff would be also threatened by the public health concerns. The Court of Appeal stated that the applicant failed to demonstrate compelling arguments undermining the integrity of the electoral process, therefore, the motion was dismissed. | https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2020_SGCA_60 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/singapore-court-appeal-daniel-de-costa-augustin-v-attorney-general-2020-06-30 |
https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/singapore-ge2020-high-court-dismisses-constitutional-challenge-against-holding-election-now; https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/singapore-ge2020-m-ravi-files-court-challenge-to-stop-election-from-being-held |
|
