prerogative order

At the first stage, an applicant must obtain leave to apply for the prerogative order.

Before 1 May 2011, it was not possible to apply for prerogative orders and declarations in the same set of legal proceedings.

It is the most commonly sought of the prerogative orders in judicial review proceedings.

In Singapore, the High Court has the power to issue prerogative orders.

The prerogative orders, declarations and injunctions are all discretionary remedies.

It is likely that the remedies sought will be one or more prerogative orders, though the applicant may also ask for a declaration.

Should leave be granted, the applicant can proceed to the second stage which is the actual application for one or more of the prerogative orders.

The Subordinate Courts are not empowered to grant prerogative orders.

This rule applies to judicial review proceedings in which prerogative orders or declarations are sought.

In Singapore, the prerogative orders were known by their traditional names until 2006, when the names were modernized.

Because the granting of a prerogative order is discretionary in nature, leave of the High Court must be obtained to make application for them.

In addition to prerogative orders, the equitable remedy of a declaration can be employed to control an excess of legal authority.

The prerogative order of prohibition, as its name implies, performs the function of ordering a body amenable to it to refrain from illegal action.

The AJR is not itself a remedy but rather a procedural umbrella under which any of the prerogative orders can be sought.

The relief sought is declarations or prerogative orders to identify the lawful decisions and correct the unlawful decisions.

However, the application for a declaration cannot be made unless the court grants leave for the prerogative orders to be applied for.

If an applicant wished to obtain both prerogative orders and declarations, a separate action had to be commenced for the declarations.

A quashing order, the most commonly sought prerogative order, has the effect of invalidating an ultra vires decision made by an authority.

With effect from 1 May 2011, it became possible to include an application for a declaration together with an application for one or more prerogative orders.

After the amendment, it is now possible to include a claim for a declaration if leave has been granted to the applicant to apply for prerogative orders.

The enactment of rule 3(7) (as interpreted in the cases) has rendered the old rules concerning standing to apply for a prerogative order more or less defunct.

The Court also cautioned against section 395 being used to circumvent the requirement that leave of court must be obtained to apply for prerogative orders (see below).

In 1938, the writs were abolished in the United Kingdom and replaced by prerogative orders with essentially the same names and functions.

The prerogative writs other than habeas corpus are discretionary remedies, and have been known as prerogative orders in England and Wales since 1938.

In theory the Crown is the applicant for every prerogative order; therefore, it would be incongruous if coercive relief were available against the Crown at its own suit.