'The common law is judge-made law. For centuries judges have been charged with the responsibility of keeping this law abreast of current social conditions and expectations. That is still the position. Continuing but limited development of the common law in this fashion is an integral part of the constitutional function of the judiciary. Had the judges not discharged this responsibility, the common law would be the same now as it was in the reign of King Henry II. It is because of this that the common law is a living instrument of law, reacting to new events and new ideas, and so capable of providing the citizens of this country with a system of practical justice relevant to the times in which they live.'

(National Westminster Bank v Spectrum Plus (2005) 2 AC 680, Lord Nicholls at para 32.)

With reference to the above statement, critically analyze judicial law-making in the United Kingdom and Singapore. Identify and analyze the circumstances where judges would or are reluctant to make new laws. Must support our legal arguments with reference to the relevant case law.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Judicial lawmaking refers to the process by which judges create new laws or modify existing laws through their interpretation and application of precedents in specific cases This power is derived from ... View the full answer