2321 records match your query:
|201. ||JULY 2014 Issue|
|Book Reviews: Criminal Law for the 21st Century: A Model Code for Singapore by ChanWing Cheong, Stanley Yeo and Michael Hor|
G.R. Sullivan  Sing JLS 252 (Jul)
The Singapore Penal Code (Cap. 224, 2008 Rev. Ed. Sing.) [Penal Code] is all but identical to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (No. 45 of 1860) [Indian Penal Code]. It is well-known that Thomas Babington Macaulay was in substance the sole author of the original draft of the Indian Penal Code and that many of the virtues of the original draft survived the legislative process. At the time of its enactment there was nothing comparable in the common law world. The clarity of expression and the precision of its drafting shone brightly when contrasted with what Stanley Yeo aptly describes in his introduction (at p. 1) as "the" confusing and cumbersome state of English criminal law at the time".
|202. ||JULY 2014 Issue|
|Book Reviews: The Law of Private Nuisance by Allan Beever|
David Tan  Sing JLS 256 (Jul)
The law of private nuisance is riddled with archaic rules and modern contradictions, and in recent years, it has received significant attention from the courts and legal scholars as it attempts to evolve to address interferences with one's access to telecommunications and sunlight in an increasingly urbanised environment. In The Law of Private Nuisance, Allan Beever criticises the proclivity of a majority of commentators for describing the law of private nuisance "as coming in separate parts" and therefore engaging in an exercise of "limited rationality" (at p. 3). Beever claims to propose an alternative framework that "focuses on the prioritising of property rights" (at p. 2).
|203. ||JULY 2014 Issue|
|Book Reviews: Data Protection Law in Singapore: Privacy and Sovereignty in an Interconnected World by Simon Chesterman, ed.|
David Tan  Sing JLS 258 (Jul)
Privacy has been said to be a concept in an utter mess. In his influential treatise, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy (2nd ed., 2005), J. Thomas McCarthy laments: "It is apparent that the word 'privacy' has proven to be a powerful rhetorical battle cry in a plethora of unrelated context. Like the emotive word 'freedom', 'privacy' means so many different things to so many different people that it has lost any preciselegal connotation that it might once have had" (at para. 5.59). Data Protection Law in Singapore, edited by Professor Simon Chesterman, is a timely and muchwelcomed collection of essays that not only address myriad perspectives on the issue of data protection, but also provide tantalising views on the challenges to privacy and sovereignty brought about by the digital revolution. Singapore enacted the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (Act 26 of 2012) [PDPA] on 15 October 2012 and it came into effect on 2 January 2013, with businesses given 18 months to comply before the PDPA became enforceable on July 2014. The book's examination of the way in which Singapore has responded to the problems brought about by data collection, aggregation, use and dissemination in the 21st century through the enactment of the PDPA will no doubt be of great interest to practitioners, policy makers and legal scholars.
|204. ||JULY 2014 Issue|
|Book Reviews: Mergers and Acquisitions in Singapore: Law and Practice by WanWai Yee and Umakanth Varottil|
Hans Tjio  Sing JLS 262 (Jul)
This eagerly-anticipated book provides an excellent introduction to the world of mergers and acquisitions ("M&A"), which is perhaps a more high value-added form of corporate practice, and one in which lawyers must understand the nature of deals in general. Whereas initial public offerings, and even general corporate work, are usually directly correlated with the health of the economy, public M&A work - like insolvency workouts - can sometimes be countercyclical in that it comes to the fore when the securities markets are weak and the need for companies to consolidate strong.
|205. ||DECEMBER 2013 Issue|
|Transnational Commercial Law: Realities, Challenges and a Call for Meaningful Convergence|
Sundaresh Menon  Sing JLS 231 (Dec)
As the Chief Justice of the host nation for the 26th LAWASIA Conference and the 15th Biennial Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific, it is my privilege on behalf of all my fellowcitizens to welcome such a distinguished and well-represented audience to Singapore. I wish, in particular, to extend a warm welcome and a hand of friendship to my counterparts, the Chief Justices and senior members of the judiciaries of more than 40 jurisdictions. I also wish to welcome the close to 300 delegates from more than 25 countries who have come to our island nation for the LAWASIA Conference.[Full Text]
|206. ||DECEMBER 2013 Issue|
|The Case for a Legislative Amendment Against 8216;Accessory Copyright' for Grey Market Products: What Can the U.S. Learn from Singapore and Australia?|
Irene Calboli and Mary LaFrance  Sing JLS 253 (Dec)
In this article, we suggest that the U.S. Congress could implement a legislative provision prohibiting copyright protection for incidental product features in the context of parallel imports. The U.S.would not be the first country to implement such a provision. In 1994, Singapore pioneered the adoption of a similar provision, which was introduced as an amendment to the SG 1987 Copyright Act. A few years later, in 1998, Australia incorporated a similar amendment to its Aust. Copyright Act 1968. In this article, we analyse in detail the Singapore and Australia provisions and, building upon these provisions, we suggest a specific amendment that the U.S. Congress could introduce into the U.S.Copyright Act of 1976.
|207. ||DECEMBER 2013 Issue|
|The Public Interest in Judicial Management|
Tracey Evans Chan  Sing JLS 278 (Dec)
The public interest is a common, but rarely discussed, feature in insolvency processes. It features in both winding up and judicial management in Singapore, with statutory provisions that stipulate the public interest as a ground for invoking these processes. However, it is unclear from the legislative deliberations what specific purpose was envisaged by the public interest exception to the typical requirements for making a judicial management order. This article reviews the concept of the public interest in the context of insolvency law in general, and corporate rescue in particular. In the light of the objectives and principles of insolvency law, and the role of the public interest, it argues for a revised, more robust understanding of the public interest in judicial management and its interaction with receivership.[Full Text]
|208. ||DECEMBER 2013 Issue|
|The New Contractual Interpretation in Singapore: From Zurich Insurance to Sembcorp Marine|
Goh Yihan  Sing JLS 301 (Dec)
This article seeks in three ways to contribute to the continued refinement of contractual interpretation in Singapore following Zurich Insurance and, more recently, Sembcorp Marine. First, it identifies the key rulings of lawderived from the cases. From these will be distilled the relevant issues in contractual interpretation. In the particular context of Singapore,contractual interpretation encompasses related issues such as the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to interpret contracts and the substantive method used to interpret contracts. It is important to identify and distinguish between the exact issues because their conflation will lead to confusion in an area already affected by much complexity due to the concurrent application of statutory and common law principles. Second, this article evaluates the courts' approaches to those issues. The principal difficulty, as will be seen, is that there is a need to distinguish between statutory and common law principles. This is affected by the perceived need of adhering to the modern commercial reality of contextual interpretation, while balancing that with binding statutory materials. Third, this article suggests some possible reforms in the future. It considers whether it is possible to achieve a commercially sensible approach while keeping within the statutory constraints that bind the courts, or whether legislative reform is required.
|209. ||DECEMBER 2013 Issue|
|Unjust Enrichment and Restitution in Singapore: Where Now and Where Next?|
Rachel Leow and Timothy Liau  Sing JLS 331 (Dec)
The law of unjust enrichment and restitution is rife with academic debate, and the intense controversy surrounding it poses much headache for the uninitiated. Furthermore, the current shape and continued development of the law of unjust enrichment is the product of an ongoing conversation between academic commentators and courts, adding to the complexity of the field. In the first part of this paper, we aim to induct newcomers to the field by setting out four of the main academic debates. We then assess the present position of Singapore law on these debates. In the second part, we evaluate the Court of Appeal's recent description of unjust enrichment as a common law strict liability cause of action which is claimant-sided and focuses on the claimant's loss in AnnaWee. We argue that this description is too blunt, and that these broad generalisations should not be interpreted as drawing any definitive conceptual boundaries that might unduly hamstring the future development of the law of unjust enrichment.[Full Text]
|210. ||DECEMBER 2013 Issue|
|Equitable Accessorial and Recipient Liability in Singapore|
Pauline Ridge  Sing JLS 361 (Dec)
This article considers three possible directions for the development of equitable accessorial and recipient liability in Singapore. These are suggested by leading cases in Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia concerning recipient liability. The first direction is closest to the status quo. It involves a contextual inquiry into dishonesty or unconscionability and exceptionally allows constructive notice to suffice for recipient liability. The second possibility is to treat the two forms of liability as involving the same participatory liability for breach of trust or fiduciary duty. The third possible direction is to maintain a distinction between the two forms of liability and to minimise the operation of recipient liability where there is a concurrent common lawclaim. The final part of the article considers whether it is possible to achieve autochthony in this area of law, given the various non-legal considerations that may influence the direction taken.