Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tutorial 2

    Uploaded by

    Tan Chee Qian
    24 views1 page
    The document discusses two court cases from different years that dealt with the same legal issue or question. In Syrup v Lee Mau (2007), the Sessions Court held one position on the issue, while in Te Aiss v Neslo (200&) the 'i(h Court held a different position. A later case, Lai Chi Kang v Ribena (20#), required the Magistrate's Court to resolve the same issue again. The document asks which of these cases the court should apply and why. It also discusses a subsequent Court of Appeal case, Le Mon Te v Coco (205), that involved the same legal issue.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document discusses two court cases from different years that dealt with the same legal issue or question. In Syrup v Lee Mau (2007), the Sessions Court held one position on the issue, while in Te Aiss v Neslo (200&) the 'i(h Court held a different position. A later case, Lai Chi Kang v Ribena (20#), required the Magistrate's Court to resolve the same issue again. The document asks which of these cases the court should apply and why. It also discusses a subsequent Court of Appeal case, Le Mon Te v Coco (205), that involved the same legal issue.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    24 views1 page

    Tutorial 2

    Uploaded by

    Tan Chee Qian
    The document discusses two court cases from different years that dealt with the same legal issue or question. In Syrup v Lee Mau (2007), the Sessions Court held one position on the issue, while in Te Aiss v Neslo (200&) the 'i(h Court held a different position. A later case, Lai Chi Kang v Ribena (20#), required the Magistrate's Court to resolve the same issue again. The document asks which of these cases the court should apply and why. It also discusses a subsequent Court of Appeal case, Le Mon Te v Coco (205), that involved the same legal issue.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    TUTORIAL 2

    QUESTION
    In Syrup v Lee Mau (2007), the Sessions Court held that !2"#$ %ut later, in Te
    Aiss v Neslo (200&) the 'i(h Court held that !2"2$
    (i) No), in Lai Chi Kang v Ribena (20#), the *a(istrate+s Court had to
    de,ide the sa-e .uestion/0ro1le- i$e$ !2"2
    3hi,h ,ases should the ,ourt a00l42 State 4our reasons$
    (ii) Later, in another ,ase Le Mon Te v Coco (205), the Court o6 A00eal
    also had to de,ide on the sa-e issue$
    3hi,h ,ases should the ,ourt a00l42

    You might also like