2321 records match your query:
|191. ||JULY 2014 Issue|
|Legal Transplants and Adaptation in a Colonial Setting: Company Law in British Malaya|
Petra Mahy and Ian Ramsay  Sing JLS 123 (Jul)
This paper traces the development of company law during the colonial era in British Malaya, providing details on the laws of the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States. It also presents an account of economic development and the use of the limited liability company form in these two interlinked jurisdictions. The paper notes the lack of connection between the evolution of company law in Malaya, local economic and political developments and the actual local use of the law. We situate this material within three current debates about the nature of colonial company law: whether the law was more a product of the "transplant effect" than of legal family; whether the dispersal of company law to the colonies was as straightforward as is often assumed; and whether the law was best characterised as "imperialism".[Full Text]
|192. ||JULY 2014 Issue|
|Implication of Terms in Law in Singapore|
Teo Keang Sood  Sing JLS 151 (Jul)
This article examines the position in Singapore in relation to the common law category of implication of terms in law. It argues that the test of necessity was indeed laid down for this category by the House of Lords in Liverpool City Council and vigorously applied in subsequent House of Lords' decisions. Although a number of reasons may arguably be advanced to support the application of the test of necessity, Singapore courts do not appear to have applied it albeit alluded to in one case. Further, the criterion of reasonableness has also not been considered in all local cases, highlighting the inconsistent approach adopted. It is argued that, ultimately, policy considerations, fairness and justice might be the true principled test for this category in Singapore.
|193. ||JULY 2014 Issue|
|Proprietary Estoppel and Common Intention Constructive Trusts: Is It Time to Abandon the Distinction?|
Susan Barkehall Thomas  Sing JLS 168 (Jul)
"When a person acts in an unconscionable way towards another, how should a court, in seeking to achieve 'practical justice', balance and reconcile values of certainty, consistency arising from precedent, overall coherence in the structure of the law, deference to to Parliament on policy issues, and the provision of a remedy appropriate to reverse or prevent harm to the innocent party?8221;
|194. ||JULY 2014 Issue|
|A Critique of International and Singapore Legal Treatments of Trafficking in Persons|
Ronald J.J.Wong  Sing JLS 179 (Jul)
The author discusses the problem of trafficking in persons, its presence in Singapore and critically analyses relevant Singapore legislation with reference to several thematic critiques on international, supranational and national legal treatments of the problem. An omnibus anti-trafficking legislation for Singapore that takes into account some of those critiques will be proposed.
|195. ||JULY 2014 Issue|
|Legislation and Case Notes: Champerty, Professional Legal Ethics and Access to Justice for Impecunious Clients|
Gary Chan Kok Yew  Sing JLS 206 (Jul)
Due to her colonial history, Singapore has inherited the English common law prohibition against maintenance and champerty. Maintenance refers to the officious intermeddling in litigation. Champerty is a particular form of maintenance where one party agrees to assist another to bring a claim such that the former shall receive a share of what may be recovered in the litigation. Criminal and civil liability for champerty was, however, abolished in England by virtue of the United Kingdom's ("U.K") Criminal Law Act 1967, subject that "any rule of that law as to the cases in which a contract is to be treated as contrary to public policy or otherwise illegal" would not be affected. Subsequently, the U.K. permitted a litigant to employ "a person providing advocacy or litigation services" under a conditional fee agreement,and has, in recent legislative amendments, even allowed damage-based agreements akin to the United States-style contingency fees. These U.K. statutory developments are, however, not applicable to Singapore. Thus, the prohibition against champerty and conditional fees remains firmly part of the Singapore legal landscape, albeit with an important judicial exception to such a prohibition, as the case below demonstrates.
|196. ||JULY 2014 Issue|
|Legislation and Case Notes: Marley v. Rawlings: Reflections from Singapore|
Goh Yihan and Yip Man  Sing JLS 218 (Jul)
The recent U.K. Supreme Court decision in Marley v. Rawlings, concerning the rectification of a will pursuant to English legislation, raises two points of reflection for Singapore law. These points arise not from the ratio of the case, which was decided on a narrow legislative basis, but from the well-considered obiter dicta contained in Lord Neuberger's judgment.
|197. ||JULY 2014 Issue|
|Legislation and Case Notes: Enhancing Sentences in the Absence of a Prosecution Appeal|
Lau Kwan Ho  Sing JLS 229 (Jul)
Sometimes, following a conviction, an appeal is brought by the convicted person without any crossappeal by the Prosecution on the sentence. Can the appellate court nevertheless increase the sentence imposed below? This study of the relevant cases and statutory provisions in Singapore suggests that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal are vested with the power to increase the sentence even where the only appeal is brought by the convicted person.
|198. ||JULY 2014 Issue|
|Legislation and Case Notes: Milestones for Animal Welfare|
Alvin W.-L. See  Sing JLS 238 (Jul)
Animal law is a little-known subject in Singapore. However, the increase in public awareness and concern about animal welfare issues demand that more attention is directed at the legal aspects of such issues. An opportunity to examine this area of the law arose in the case of Ling Chung Yee Roy. The District Court, presided by District Judge Ng Peng Hong, had to decide whether the accused was guilty of an animal cruelty offence under s. 42(1)(e) of the Animals and Birds Act. The section provides that "[a]ny person who causes, procures or, being the owner, permits to be confined, conveyed, lifted or carried any animal in such a manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering shall be guilty of an offence." This case is important for two reasons. First, it adds to the few existing local case law on animal cruelty. It is the first time a Singapore court has considered a situation that falls short of obvious cruelty. This made it necessary for the court to examine more carefully the legal requirements of the cruelty offence, particularly the meaning of "unneccesary suffering", in order to determine the scope of its application. By contrast, the previous cases all involved serious abuse, which clearly amounted to a cruelty offence, thus making it unnecessary to state the scope of the offence with precision. Secondly, the case was decided shortly after the government accepted the recommendation of the Animal welfare Legislation Review Committee ("AWLRC") to amend the ABA to impose a duty on a person responsible for an animal to ensure its welfare. An examination of the relationship between cruelty law and welfare law will be useful in determining the continued importance of Ling Chung Yee Roy when the statutory amendment comes into force.
|199. ||JULY 2014 Issue|
|Book Reviews: International Sales Law: A Guide to the CISGby Ingeborg Schwenzer, Christiana Fountoulakis and Mariel Dimsey|
Gary F. Bell  Sing JLS 246 (Jul)
I have been teaching the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (11 April 1980, 1489 U.N.T.S. 31, 19 I.L.M. 668 (entered into force 1 January 1988, ratification by Singapore 16 Feb 1995) [CISG]) for 20 years, first at McGill and then at the National University of Singapore. At first there was no short textbook I could recommend to students.
|200. ||JULY 2014 Issue|
|Book Reviews: Positive Obligations in Criminal Law by Andrew Ashworth|
A.P. Simester  Sing JLS 249 (Jul)
Positive Obligations in Criminal Law is a collection of essays rather than a monograph, loosely unified by a concern with the positive duties owed by citizens and/or the state, as the title might suggest. Certainly, there are essays that engage directly with positive obligations, including those on omissions (Chapter 2), human rights (Chapter 8) and, perhaps less obviously, ignorance of the law (Chapter 3). Other essays, such as those on strict and constructive liability (Chapters 4, 5) and on riskbased possession offences (Chapter 6), are really only tangentially connected to that theme. Yet the book is none the worse for that. In truth, it is a collection of somewhat disparate but individually excellent essays on some central topics in the criminal law. As such, the collection is likely to be an important point of reference for many years to come.