2321 records match your query:
|11. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|Case and Legislation Notes: The Ebb and Flow of Vicarious Liability in Tort Law&#151; Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants; WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants|
Joel Fun Wei Xuan and Darien The Chun Yiu  Sing JLS 206 (Mar)
Vicarious liability claims have often stirred controversy, as liability is being imposed on a party which is not responsible for the tortious conduct. This is especially so, as the law on vicarious liability has been expanding over the past few years to include an increasing scope of relationships and circumstances. This case comment looks at two decisions of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in 2020 which took a step back from this expansionary approach and introduces new constraints. In examining the desirability of these changes and comparing them with the position in Singapore, it is hoped that new perspectives will be gained to clarify this unsettled area of the law.
|12. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|Case and Legislation Notes: Tax Avoidance by Professionals: Where are We with Wee Teng Yau?&#151; Wee Teng Yau v Comptroller of Income Tax|
Vincent Ooi  Sing JLS 220 (Mar)
Wee Teng Yau represents the first case on tax avoidance by professionals to come before the Supreme Court. This note attempts to reconcile the judgments of the High Court and the Income Tax Board of Review, which both made findings that the taxpayer had engaged in tax avoidance, but which approached the case rather differently on some points. Apart from a clear rejection of the "personal exertion" principle as having no legal basis under Singapore law, it appears that the common conclusion is that professionals incorporating a company would not constitute tax avoidance in itself, but if this was coupled with the paying of an artificially low level of remuneration to the same practicing professional, this might well constitute tax avoidance.
|13. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|Case and Legislation Notes: Intimations of Proportionality? Rights Protection and the Singapore Constitution&#151; Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Public Prosecutor|
Alec Stone Sweet  Sing JLS 231 (Mar)
Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Public Prosecutor is potentially the most important constitutional decision ever rendered by the Singapore Court of Appeal, insofar as it heralds a new and more intrusive approach to the judicial review of rights claims in Singapore. The ruling expressly overturned deference postures associated with the "presumption of constitutionality," at least with respect to Article 14 of the Constitution; it consolidated dicta announcing the reconfiguration of separation of powers doctrines; and it developed and deployed a rudimentary, if yet incomplete, form of proportionality review to assess the legality of legislation adopted under Article 14's limitation clause. The note analyses these changes from a comparative perspective, in light of the difficulties foreign apex courts have had in fully transitioning to a more balancing-friendly approach to rights adjudication.
|14. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|Case and Legislation Notes: The Singaporean Response to Abuse of Due Process in International Arbitration&#151; China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC|
Teo Jim Yang  Sing JLS 244 (Mar)
The promise of international arbitration as an efficient dispute resolution mechanism has been plagued by the unsavoury practice of parties abusing their due process rights to attack arbitral awards that turn out unfavourably. The Court of Appeal in CMNC v Jaguar Energy sends a clear message that parties themselves must be accountable for raising their procedural objections contemporaneously to the tribunal, rather than reserving them for a second bite at the proverbial cherry.
|15. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|Case and Legislation Notes: Border Problems Between Statute, Policy and Private International Law&#151; The Star Entertainment QLD Ltd v Wong Yew Choy|
Marcus Teo  Sing JLS 254 (Mar)
The enforcement of foreign gambling debts and related foreign judgments has long troubled Singapore law. Although courts generally agree that their enforcement through the common law conflict of laws rules should be refused, the legal doctrines and concepts they invoke to justify that conclusion&#151;procedural characterisations, forum mandatory rules and public policy&#151;are unsuited for that purpose. This note argues that the use of those doctrines and concepts sits at odds with their underlying purposes as well as a principled understanding of the broader relationship between common law, statute and policy in private disputes with foreign elements. A prohibition on the enforcement of foreign gambling debts, if desired, should therefore be secured through legislative tools rather than the continued contortion of existing common law rules.
|16. ||MARCH 2021 Issue|
|Book Review: Asian Principles for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments by Adeline Chong|
B&#233;ligh Elbalti  Sing JLS 267 (Mar)
On 3 September 2020, the Asian Principles for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (hereinafter, "Asian Principles" ) adopted under the auspices of the Asian Business Law Institute was officially released, a date that may be considered a turning point in the history of legal developments in the field of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Asia. This is because to date, there is no single regional framework that ensures the smooth circulation of judgments between neighbouring states despite strong economic ties that bind the various Asian jurisdictions. Many of these states (such as Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Thailand etc .) have not even showed eagerness to establish their own networks of bilateral cooperation to that effect (for an earlier unfruitful attempt, see Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee, Report of the Seventh Session Baghdad 1965 (1966)). This status quo might intrigue outsiders' curiosity. Indeed, unlike Europe, Latin America, or intergovernmental organisations such as the Commonwealth of Independent States ("CIS"), the League of Arab States ("LAS") or the Gulf Cooperation Council ("GCC"), where regional schemes on judgments recognition and enforcement have already been in place, the lack of interest displayed in some parts of Asia, at least at an official or diplomatic level, is hardly comprehensible. This is more so knowing that the field of international arbitration has a completely different picture although the need to foster economic growth and to guarantee legal certainty and predictability is indifferent to which method of dispute resolution is adopted.
|17. ||SEPTEMBER 2020 Issue|
|Introduction: Contemporary Issues in Public Law&#151;Theory, Doctrine and Practice|
Swati Jhaveri  Sing JLS 363 (Sep)
This is the second part of the special symposium section of the Singapore Journal of Legal Studies; the first was published in September 2019. The two symposia issues bring together a collection of papers that look at contemporary issues relating to public law and litigation in Singapore. Despite the flourishing of research in the area in the recent decade, there are a number of areas of public law that remain under-explored. As highlighted in the Introduction to the September 2019 symposium section, not only has there been an increase in the number of applications for judicial review, there has also been an increasing diversity in the issues mooted in courts in recent years. Since the last symposium issue was published, applicants have continued to bring important public law issues to court. The courts have had to consider the effect of ouster clauses in legislation, whether and when courts can adopt a rectifying construction of legislation, the constitutionality of holding general elections in 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic implicating once more the 'right to vote' in the courts, the constitutionality of the mode of carrying out the death penalty, challenges of correction directions issued pursuant to the new Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 and further challenges to section 377A of the Penal Code. The courts have also recently looked at applying a proportionality-style of analysis to the review of the constitutionality of legislation.
|18. ||SEPTEMBER 2020 Issue|
|A Place to Stand to Move the Earth: Standing and the Rule of Law|
Jack Tsen-Ta Lee  Sing JLS 367 (Sep)
It has been said that rules relating to standing ( locus standi ) in public law try to resolve the conflict between the "desirability of encouraging people to participate actively in the enforcement of the law" and the "undesirability of encouraging meddlesome interlopers invoking the jurisdiction of the courts in matters in which they are not concerned". Nonetheless, standing rules that are excessively restrictive may result in certain forms of governmental action being virtually immune from judicial scrutiny. This article argues that recasting the standing rules to focus on an applicant's suitability to bring a claim and whether the claim is sustainable on its merits accords better with the courts' role as a check on the political branches of government and their duty to uphold the rule of law.
|19. ||SEPTEMBER 2020 Issue|
|Ousting Ouster Clauses: The Ins and Outs of the Principles Regulating the Scope of Judicial Review in Singapore|
Thio Li-ann  Sing JLS 392 (Sep)
How a court responds to an ouster clause or other attempts to curb its jurisdiction, which seeks to exclude or limit judicial review over a public law dispute, is a reflection of the judicial perception of its role within a specific constitutional order. Article 4 of the Singapore Constitution declares the supremacy of constitutional law over all other forms of law&#151;whether statutory, common law or customary in origin. The courts have judicially declared various unwritten constitutional principles which are of particular relevance to the question of the scope of judicial review, particularly, the separation of powers and the rule of law.With comparative references where illuminating, this article examines the scope of judicial review in Singapore administrative law, in the face of legislative intent that it be partially truncated or wholly excluded, with a view to identifying and evaluating the factors that have been judicially considered relevant in ascertaining the legitimacy of an ouster clause, including the Article 93 judicial power clauses and the inter-play of other constitutional principles.[Full Text]
|20. ||SEPTEMBER 2020 Issue|
|The Application of Administrative Law Principles in Private Law: The Case for Convergence|
Calvin Liang  Sing JLS 427 (Sep)
The common law represents an ongoing negotiation between past precedents and present-day principles and policies. If, as will be argued, the basis of the common law and judicial review in particular is the courts' duty to protect the individual from the effects of dominant power, then we must look to where that dominant power will increasingly reside. In the past, that power resided predominantly with the state. The future promises to be one with metanational private organisations disrupting that monopoly of power through their contractual relationships with us. Not if but when that situation materialises, the public-private function distinction that presently delineates the application of judicial review principles will increasingly sound quaint. We should therefore turn our attention to examining how judicial review principles&#151;developed over centuries to control dominant statebased power&#151;can be adapted to regulate the contractual relationships between powerful private organisations and us. This has possible wide-ranging implications, including a growing irrelevance of judicial review procedure, and contract law doctrines exerting at least an anchoring effect on how judicial review principles evolve.