Law natural justice
This was enunciated in Singapore in Ho Paul v. The principles of natural justice apply any time the NWB makes a decision that seriously affects the rights of others, including project proponents, interested parties, and members of the public.
Three common law rules are referred to in relation to natural justice or procedural fairness.
Natural justice meaning in law
The British courts have held it is not enough for an affected person to merely be informed of a hearing. It was held by the House of Lords in AF,  applying the decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights A v United Kingdom ,  that a person accused of terrorism against whom a control order has been issued must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to give effective instructions to his special advocate. The Evidence Rule The third rule is that an administrative decision must be based upon logical proof or evidence material. Where the evidence consists of oral testimony, then he should be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses who give that testimony, whose identities should be disclosed. In Locabail, the judges stated that in a large proportion of the cases, application of the two tests would lead to the same outcome. It has been observed that "disqualification of an adjudicator will not be permitted to destroy the only tribunal with power to act". This eventually led to the judge being disqualified from deciding the case. The principles of natural justice were derived from the Romans who believed that some legal principles were "natural" or self-evident and did not require a statutory basis.
In Singapore, the right to legal representation is contingent on the nature of the inquiry. Indian Head School Division No. Subsequently, he argued that he should have been warned of the legal implications of not being legally represented.
Have reasonable faith that the NWB has sufficient expertise to understand the issue before them. In Rajeevan Edakalavan v.
based on 47 review