As mentioned above in relation to prohibiting orders, the test for standing to apply for a quashing order is that of sufficient interest in the matter.
The remedies available in Singapore administrative law are the prerogative orders – the mandatory order (formerly known as mandamus), prohibiting order (prohibition), quashing order (certiorari), and order for review of detention (habeas corpus) – and the declaration, a form of equitable remedy.
The remedies available in a judicial review action are the prerogative orders – the mandatory order (formerly known as mandamus), prohibiting order (prohibition), quashing order (certiorari), and order for review of detention (habeas corpus) – and the declaration, a form of equitable remedy.
Like a quashing order, a prohibiting order is used to help maintain good standards of public administration.
A prohibiting order operates to prevent illegal action by a public authority from occurring in the first place.
If a mandatory order, prohibiting order or quashing order is sought, the applicant must follow the procedure set out in Order 53 of the Rules of Court.
A mandatory order is an order of the High Court commanding a public authority to perform a public duty, while a prohibiting order operates to prevent illegal action by an authority from occurring in the first place.
The procedure for applying for an order for review of detention differs from that for obtaining a mandatory order, prohibiting order or quashing order because the latter orders are only available by leave of court, whereas an order for review of detention may be applied for without prior permission from the court.
The controversial articles 26 and 27 of the constitution strictly controlled Church property and prohibited religious orders from engaging in education.
Slavery was prohibited in order to avoid the growth of large plantations.
