Talk:Wednesbury unreasonableness in Singapore law/Archive 1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Ukexpat in topic Relevance of the picture
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wednesbury unreasonableness in Singapore law. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Relevance of the picture
What's the relevance of the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.17.162 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's explained in the caption. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Was any teacher actually dismissed because of her red hair, or was that just a hypothetical situation? Stonemason89 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- It was a hypothetical situation mentioned in the Wednesbury case. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Was any teacher actually dismissed because of her red hair, or was that just a hypothetical situation? Stonemason89 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with those questioning the usefulness of the image and its (very lengthy) caption. The concept is explained in the relevant articles and IMHO the image adds nothing. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think it lends interest to what may otherwise be a rather technical article. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with those questioning the usefulness of the image and its (very lengthy) caption. The concept is explained in the relevant articles and IMHO the image adds nothing. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- You may have a point if the "red headed teacher" fact pattern was a real case (similar to the "snail in the bottle" in Donohue v Stevenson), but it isn't, it's a hypothetical example from the original Wednesbury judgment. In addition the caption is repetitive of material that is elsewhere - in fact that goes for the captions for all the other images too. Captions should be succinct - see Wikipedia:CAPTION#Succinctness. – ukexpat (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Title
Shouldn't this be moved to Wednesbury principle in Singapore law? When I studied admin law, it was always referred to as the "Wednesbury principle"; it appears to be the convention on Wikipedia to use the "in X law" formation, see eg Nuisance in English law. – ukexpat (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- The doctrine seems to be more commonly known in Singapore as "Wednesbury unreasonableness" rather than "the Wednesbury principle". But I have no objection to the article being renamed "Wednesbury unreasonableness in Singapore law", if that is clearer. I didn't realize there was any convention concerning this. "Bias in Singapore" and "Legitimate expectation in Singapore" should then be renamed to "Bias in Singapore law" and "Legitimate expectation in Singapore law". — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Done, Done and Done; redirect created at Wednesbury principle in Singapore law. – ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
