No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Conceptualising A Role for The Common Law in Environmental Protection in Singapore
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 December 2021
Abstract
In Singapore, the key institutions driving environmental protection are the legislature and the executive. The judiciary's role in environmental protection has thus far been relatively minor. By drawing upon environmental law theory and comparative analysis of other common law jurisdictions, this article explores avenues through which the common law can be engaged more meaningfully to further environmental protection in Singapore. A conceptualisation of environmental law as directed at furthering the rule of law by promoting carefully-considered and participatory environmental governance will be suggested as a fruitful way forward for thinking about the role of the common law in environmental protection. Drawing upon this theory, as well as the experience of other common law jurisdictions, the article proposes a set of concrete steps by which greater common law engagement with environmental protection in Singapore can be achieved.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the National University of Singapore
References
1 See Chun, Joseph & Heng, Lye Lin, Environmental Law in Singapore (Academy Publishing 2019)Google Scholar for reference.
2 There have been no judicial review cases on environmental decisions in Singapore – Chun & Lye (n 1) 196.
3 See, for example, the decision in Lim Sor Choo v Sato Kogyo [2006] SGDC 212, where the district judge dealt with a claim under the tort of private nuisance for noise pollution by granting a significant degree of latitude to the defendant in question.
4 National Climate Change Secretariat, Strategy Group (NCCS), ‘Public Consultation on Developing Singapore's Long-Term Low Emissions Strategy’ (16 Jul 2019) <https://www.reach.gov.sg/participate/public-consultation/national-climate-change-secretariat/public-consultation-on-developing-singapores-long-term-low-emissions-strategy> accessed 14 Jul 2020.
5 The government can reject feedback without giving reasons; see Lian, Koh Kheng, ‘Book Review: Environmental Law in Singapore’ (2020) 32 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 335, 338Google Scholar.
6 Chun & Lye (n 1) 56–57; Lin Heng Lye, ‘A Fine City in A Garden—Environmental Law and Governance in Singapore’ (2008) Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 68, 109.
7 Chun & Lye (n 1) 85–89; Lye (n 6) 110.
8 Lye (n 6) 111.
9 Chun & Lye (n 1) 58–60, 74–82.
10 Chun & Lye (n 1) 63–64.
11 This will be elaborated in Sections II.B. and IV.B.
12 See Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney General [2014] 1 SLR 345 paras 48–50, Keong, Chan Sek, ‘Judicial Review – From Angst to Empathy: A Lecture to Singapore Management University Second Year Law Students (2010) 22 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 469, para 37Google Scholar.
13 See, for example, Lim Meng Suang v Attorney-General [2015] 1 SLR 26, 32–24, 60–61, where the Singapore Court of Appeal declined to consider ‘extra-legal’ arguments and considered that it is for Parliament, and not courts, to consider whether it is necessary to add to constitutionally impermissible categories of discrimination. See also SGB Starkstrom Pte Ltd v Commissioner for Labour [2016] 3 SLR 598 paras 34–63, for an indication of the Singapore Court of Appeal's reluctance to engage in matters perceived to be beyond the judiciary's institutional expertise.
14 See, for example, Chun & Lye (n 1) 1–14. See also Elizabeth Fisher et al, ‘Maturity and Methodology: Starting a Debate about Environmental Law Scholarship’ (2009) 21 Journal of Environmental Law 213 for a candid examination of the difficulties involved in developing environmental law scholarship as a body of legal scholarship.
15 Kotze, Louis J, ‘The Conceptual Contours of Environmental Constitutionalism’ (2015) 21 Widener Law Review 187, 189, 199Google Scholar.
16 Bell, Stuart et al. , Environmental Law (9th edn, Oxford University Press 2017) 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 ibid 5.
18 Fisher, Elizabeth, Lange, Bettina & Scotford, Eloise, Environmental Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford University Press 2013) 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 Pendersen, Ole, ‘Modest Pragmatic Lessons for a Diverse and Incoherent Environmental Law’ (2013) 33 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 103, 104Google Scholar; Woolf, Harry, ‘Are the Judiciary Environmentally Myopic’ (1992) 4 Journal of Environmental Law 1, 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 Woolf (n 19) 2.
21 Waite, Andrew, ‘The Quest for Environmental Law Equilibrium’ (2005) 7 Environmental Law Review 34, 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Tarlock, A Dan, ‘Is There a There There in Environmental Law’ (2004) 19 Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law 213, 230Google Scholar.
23 Tarlock, ‘Is There a There There in Environmental Law’ (n 22) 224–225; Tarlock, A Dan, ‘The Future of Environmental Rule of Law Litigation’ (2002) 19 Pace Environmental Law Review 575, 586–587Google Scholar.
24 Tarlock, ‘The Future of Environmental Rule of Law Litigation’ (n 22) 235.
25 Klass, Alexandra B, ‘Modern Public Trust Principles: Recognizing Rights and Integrating Standards’ (2006) 82 Notre Dame Law Review 699, 713Google Scholar.
26 ibid 713.
27 Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655; Stephen Tromans QC, ‘Planning and environmental law – uneasy bedfellows?’ (2012) 13 Journal of Planning and Environment Law 73.
28 Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13.
29 Maria Lee, ‘Tort, Regulation and Environmental Liability’ (2002) 22 Legal Studies 33, 37.
30 ibid 37–38.
31 Woolf (n 19) 4; Lee (n 29) 40; Chun & Lye (n 1) 277.
32 Klaudt, Dustin W, ‘Can Canada's “Living Tree” Constitution and Lessons from Foreign Climate Litigation Seed Climate Justice and Remedy Climate Change?’ (2018) 31 Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 185, 230–231Google Scholar; Chun & Lye (n 1) 259.
33 Lynn Hagger, ‘Current Environmental Enforcement Issues: Some International Developments and Their Implications for the UK’ (2000) 2 Environmental Law Review 23, 28–29; Ceri Warnock, ‘Environmental adjudication: mapping the spectrum and identifying the fulcrum’ (2017) Public Law 643, 655.
34 Heather McLeod-Kilmurray, ‘Stichting Greenpeace and Environmental Public Interest Standing before the Community Judicature: Some Lessons from the Federal Court of Canada’ (1998–1999) 1 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 269, 286; Nupur Chowdhury, ‘From Judicial Activism to Adventurism – The Godavarman Case in the Supreme Court of India’ (2014) 17 Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 177, 183.
35 Warnock (n 33) 645–646.
36 Perraudeau, Maia, ‘Back to the future: Brexit, EIA and the challenge of environmental judicial review’ (2019) 21 Environmental Law Review 6, 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Warnock (n 33) 646.
37 See, for example, In re Deepwater Horizon 745 F (3d) 157, 2014 AMC 2600 (5th Cir 2014).
38 See, for example, Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather Plc [1994] 2 AC 264; Transco v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1.
39 See, for example, R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 All ER 929.
40 See, for a summarised description of these cases, Ewing, Benjamin & Kysar, Douglas A, ‘Prods and Pleas: Limited Government in an Era of Unlimited Harm’ (2011) 121 Yale Law Journal 350, 367Google Scholar.
41 See, for example, David A Grossman, ‘Warming Up to a Not-So-Radical Idea: Tort-Based Climate Change Litigation’ (2003) 28 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 1; Thomas W Merrill, ‘Global Warming as a Public Nuisance’ (2005) 39 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 293.
42 R Henry Weaver & Douglas A Kysar, ‘Courting Disaster: Climate Change and the Adjudication of Catastrophe’ (2017) 93 Notre Dame Law Review 295, 312
43 Ewing & Kysar (n 40) 356, 375.
44 Weaver & Kysar (n 42) 322.
45 Clean Air Foundation v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [2007] HKCFI 757 para 17; Croshaw, Heather R, ‘The Right to Health and Right to Life: Positive Obligations for Controlling Air Pollution in Hong Kong in Clean Air Foundation v. HKSAR’ (2014) 15 Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 450, 476CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
46 Clean Air Foundation v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [2007] HKCFI 757 para 43; Rohan Price & John Kong Shan Ho, ‘Air Pollution in Hong Kong: The Failure of Judicial Review and the Slight Promise of Recent Cases’ [2011] Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 394, 397–398.
47 Chu Yee Wah v Director of Environmental Protection [2011] HKCA 217 paras 116–118; Tromans QC (n 27) 1315.
48 See, for example, R (on the application of Buckinghamshire CC) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3; Gita Parihar, ‘An environment for change: using law to protect the planet’ [2014] Journal of Planning & Environment Law 31.
49 See, for example, Ontario Power Generation Inc. v Greenpeace Canada 2015 FCA 186 para 130; Agraira v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) 2013 SCC 36; Greenpeace Canada v Canada (AG) 2014 FC 463; Jason MacLean & Chris Tollefson, ‘Climate-Proofing Judicial Review after Paris: Judicial Competence, Capacity, and Courage’ (2018) 31 Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 245, 248–249.
50 Warnock (n 33) 662.
51 Patrick McAuslan, ‘The Role of Courts and Other Judicial Type Bodies in Environmental Management’ (1991) 3 Journal of Environmental Law 195, 198.
52 Jocelyn Stacey, ‘The Environmental Emergency and the Legality of Discretion in Environmental Law’ (2016) 52 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 985; Jocelyn Stacey, ‘The Promise of the Rule of (Environmental) Law: A Reply to Pardy's Unbearable Licence’ (2016) 53 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 681.
53 Stacey, ‘The Promise of the Rule of (Environmental) Law’ (n 52) 684–685. See also Weaver & Kysar (n 42) for further support of the idea that environmental issues indeed present an ongoing emergency.
54 Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (George Schwab tr, MIT Press 1985).
55 Stacey, ‘The Promise of the Rule of (Environmental) Law’ (n 52) 690–691.
56 Cicero, On the Commonwealth and On the Laws (James Zetzel tr, Cambridge University Press 1999) III.33. See also Allan, TRS, Constitutional Justice: A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law (Oxford University Press 2003) 2–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
57 Stacey, ‘The Promise of the Rule of (Environmental) Law’ (n 52) 691.
58 Anna Lund, ‘Canadian Approaches to America's Public Trust Doctrine: Classic Trusts, Fiduciary Duties & Substantive Review’ (2012) 23 Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 135, 168–169; Ole W Pedersen, ‘A bill of rights, environmental rights and the UK constitution’ (2011) Public Law 577, 584–585.
59 See, for example, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Downs [2008] EWHC 2666 (Admin); Pedersen (n 58) 583; Lund (n 58) 168–169.
60 Rawls, John, Political Liberalism (Columbia University Press 1996) 231Google Scholar.
61 Ewing & Kysar (n 40) 364–366, 420
62 Ewing & Kysar (n 40) 411.
63 Lund (n 58) 169.
64 Tarlock (n 22) 239–240.
65 Tarlock (n 22).
66 Lord Carnwath, ‘Environmental law in a global society’ (2015) 3 Journal of Planning & Environment Law 269, 278.
67 British Columbia v Canadian Forest Products Ltd 2004 SCC 38 para 155.
68 Chun & Lye (n 1) 211.
69 Lee (n 29) 37; David Grinlinton, ‘The Continuing Relevance of Common Law Property Rights and Remedies in Addressing Environmental Challenges’ (2017) 62 McGill Law Journal 633, 654.
70 Gage, Andrew, ‘Public Rights and the Lost Principle of Statutory Interpretation’ (2005) 15 Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 107, 111Google Scholar; Grinlinton (n 69) 656–657.
71 McAuslan (n 51) 198; see for example St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping (1985) 11 HLC 642.
72 DeMarco, Jerry V, ‘The Supreme Court of Canada's Recognition of Fundamental Environmental Values: What Could Be Next in Canadian Environmental Law?’ (2007) 17 Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 159, 178–179Google Scholar.
73 See, for example, Wilson & Horton Ltd v AG [1997] 2 NZLR 513, 519–524; Streets Ice Cream Pty Ltd v Australian Asbestos Installations Pty Ltd [1967] 1 NSWR 50, 52.
74 Trespass is especially fruitful in the US; see for example Martin v Reynolds Metals Company, 342 P (2d) 790, 793–794; Grinlinton (n 69) 654–655.
75 Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 1 Ex 265, 279–280; Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather Plc [1994] 2 AC 264, 305.
76 Grinlinton (n 69) 660.
77 Leghari v Pakistan (August 31, 2015), Lahore WP No 25501/2015 No 1 (HC Green Bench, Pakistan). See also the Supreme Court of Pakistan decision in Shehla Zia v WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693.
78 Virender Gaur v State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577, 580-581; A P Pollution Control Board v Prof M V Nayadu 1994 (3) SCC 1; Ishwar Singh v State of Haryana AIR 1996 P H 30; Chowdhury (n 34) 182.
79 See also James R May & Erin Daly, ‘Vindicating Environmental Rights Worldwide’ (2009) Oregon Review of International Law 365, 366–367.
80 McAuslan (n 51) 202.
81 Gage (n 70) 130.
82 Berkeley v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No. 1) [2001] 2 AC 603.
83 R (on the application of Greenpeace Ltd) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] EWHC 311 (Admin) para 49; Pedersen (n 58).
84 Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44; R (on the application of Greenpeace Ltd) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] EWHC 311 (Admin).
85 Westfield New Zealand Ltd v North Shore City Council [2005] NZSC 17.
86 Neil Craik, ‘The duty to cooperate in the customary law of environmental impact assessment’ (2020) 69 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 239, 239, 243–244; A Dan Tarlock, ‘Multi-Stakeholder Involvement in the Hong Kong Environmental Assessment Process’ (1999) 7 Asia Pacific Law Review 177, 178.
87 Craik (n 86) 241.
88 Tarlock (n 86) 179.
89 Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (1998) (Cap 499) (Hong Kong); Croshaw (n 45) 473.
90 Tarlock (n 86) 187.
91 Berkeley v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others [2001] 2 AC 603, 615; Perraudeau (n 36) 18.
92 Gray v The Minister for Planning, Director-General of the Department of Planning and Centennial Hunter Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 720; Rose, Anna, ‘Gray v Minister for Planning: The Rising Tide, of Climate Change Litigation in Australia’ (2007) 29 Sydney Law Review 725, 728Google Scholar.
93 See, for reference, R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables [1998] AC 407.
94 Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v Federal Power Commission, 354 F.2d 608 (2d Cir 1965).
95 Klaudt (n 32) 196–197.
96 Klass (n 25) 702.
97 See, for example, National Audubon Society v Superior Court 33 Cal.3d 419 (1983); Jackson, Sarah, Brandes, Oliver M & Christensen, Randy, ‘Lessons from an Ancient Concept: How the Public Trust Doctrine Will Meet Obligations to Protect the Environment and the Public Interest in Canadian Water Management and Governance in the 21st Century’ (2012) 23 Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 175, 178–179Google Scholar.
98 Jackson, Brandes & Christensen (n 97) 179–180.
99 See, for example, National Audubon Society v Superior Court 33 Cal.3d 419 (1983).
100 Lund (n 58) 142–143.
101 Jackson, Brandes & Christensen (n 97) 187; Klass (n 25) 701–702, 707–708.
102 MC Mehta v Kamal Nath and others (13 December 1996), [1996] INSC 1608; Jackson, Brandes & Christensen (n 97) 187–188.
103 British Columbia v Canadian Forest Products Ltd 2004 SCC 38 para 81.
104 See, for example, In re Water Use Permit Applications 9 P.3d 409 (Hawaii, 2000).
105 Lund (n 58) 153.
106 Lund (n 58) 152–153.
107 [1992] 1 SCR 3.
108 [1997] 3 SCR 213.
109 Chris Tollefson, ‘Advancing an Agenda? A Reflection on Recent Developments in Canadian Public Interest Environmental Litigation’ (2002) 51 University of New Brunswick Law Journal 175.
110 DeMarco (n 72) 163.
111 See, for example, Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239; Lim Meng Suang v Attorney General [2015] 1 SLR 26; SGB Starkstrom Pte Ltd v Commissioner for Labour [2016] 3 SLR 598.
112 Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v AG [2014] 1 SLR 345 paras 48–50.
113 R (Devon Wildlife Trust) v Teignbridge DC [2015] EWHC 2159 (Admin) para 98.
114 Varuhas, Jason NE, ‘Judicial review at the crossroads’ (2015) 74(2) The Cambridge Law Journal 215, 216CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
115 See R (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1363 para 68; R (Tinn) v Secretary of State for Transport [2006] EWHC 193.
116 R (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1363 para 68.
117 R (Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council [2014] 1 WLR 3947 para 23; R (Luton BC) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin); R (Hollow) v Surrey County Council [2019] EWHC 618 (Admin) para 77.
118 See R (Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council [2014] 1 WLR 3947 para 35; R (Niazi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 1495; Varuhas (n 114) 216. This idea has been affirmed in Hong Kong as well – see, for example, PCCW-HKT Telephone Ltd v Telecommunications Authority [2008] 2 HKLRD 282 para 12.
119 R v Shropshire Health Authority ex p Duffus [1990] 1 Med LR 119; [1990] COD 131; Carl Makin, ‘Consultations and the law: on shaky foundations?’ (2019) 22 Journal of Housing Law 111, 116–117.
120 R v Brent London Borough Council, ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168, 189.
121 R v Brent London Borough Council, ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168, 189; R (Kebbell Developments Ltd) v Leeds City Council [2018] EWCA Civ 450 para 63.
122 R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213 para 108.
123 R (Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council [2014] 1 WLR 3947.
124 R (Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council [2014] 1 WLR 3947.
125 Lam Yuet Mei v Permanent Secretary for Education and Manpower [2004] 3 HKLRD 524; Cheuk-Yuet, Ho, ‘Judicial Review of Public Consultation in Hong Kong: The Case for Fixing an “Underdeveloped” Jurisprudential Area’ (2019) 49 Hong Kong Law Journal 459, 472Google Scholar.
126 R (on the application of Greenpeace Ltd) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] EWHC 311 (Admin) para 63; R (on the application of Hillingdon LBC) v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWHC 626 (Admin) para 68.
127 Bard Campaign v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWHC 308 (Admin); R (Milton Keynes Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWHC 1060 (Admin); Wigley, Jenny, ‘Changing times: the importance of proper consultation’ (2011) 11 Journal of Planning & Environment Law 1447, 1453–1454Google Scholar.
128 Makin (n 119) 113.
129 R (on the application of Greenpeace Ltd) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] EWHC 311 (Admin) paras 116–117.
130 R (Friends of Hethel Ltd) v South Norfolk DC [2010] EWCA Civ 894.
131 R (on the application of Guiney) v Greenwich LBC [2008] EWHC 2012 (Admin); R (Edwards) v Environment Agency (No 2) [2008] UKHL 22 para 65; Wigley (n 127) 1448.
132 See SGB Starkstrom Pte Ltd v Commissioner for Labour [2016] 3 SLR 598 paras 34–63, for an indication of the Singapore courts’ reluctance to accept the substantive legitimate expectations doctrine. Since a duty to consult would be more conceptually related to a procedural legitimate expectation, a rejection of a duty to consult arising from a legitimate expectation might not necessarily be a foregone conclusion in Singapore.
133 Audrey Tan, ‘Government, nature groups hope to continue discussions on Cross Island Line’ The Straits Times (7 Dec 2019) <https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/cross-island-line-govt-nature-groups-hope-to-continue-talks> accessed 13 Jul 2021.
134 See, for example, CBB v Law Society of Singapore [2019] SGHC 293.
135 See, for example, R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037, 1049–1050 (Simon Brown LJ, dissenting).
136 Clean Air Foundation v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [2007] HKCFI 757.
137 Chun & Lye (n 1) 179.
138 Tan Eng Hong v AG [2012] 4 SLR 476; Vellama d/o Merie Muthu v AG [2013] SGCA 39.
139 Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v AG [2014] 1 SLR 345 paras 62–63.
140 Chun & Lye (n 1) 185.
141 Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v AG [2014] 1 SLR 345 paras 62–63, Martin, Claude, ‘Interlocutory Injunctions and the Environment: Comparing the Law Between Quebec and the Other Provinces’ (2004) 13 Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 359, 366Google Scholar.
142 Macintosh, Andrew, Roberts, Heather & Constable, Amy, ‘An Empirical Evaluation of Environmental Citizen Suits Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)’ (2017) 39 Sydney Law Review 85, 87Google Scholar.
143 McLeod-Kilmurray (n 34) 286.
144 Martin (n 141) 366; Hammons, Jeffrey T, ‘Public Interest Standing and Judicial Review of Environmental Matters: A Comparative Approach’ (2016) 41 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 515, 546Google Scholar.
145 Hammons (n 144) 543–544; Macintosh, Roberts & Constable (n 142) 109–110.
146 For the UK position, see Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44; Jason NE Varuhas, ‘Judicial review: standing and remedies’ (2013) 72 The Cambridge Law Journal 243, 244; Hammons (n 144) 521–522. For the position in Canada, see Minister of Finance of Canada v Finlay [1986] 2 SCR 607; Tollefson (n 109) 183. For the position in Australia, see North Coast Environment Council v Minister of Resources [1994] FCA 1556.
147 Sunstein, Cass R, ‘What's Standing after Lujan? Of Citizen Suits, “Injuries,” and Article III’ (1992) 91 Michigan Law Review 163, 188–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
148 Varuhas (n 114) 215.
149 Varuhas (n 114) 215.