2321 records match your query:
|371. ||DECEMBER 2008 Issue|
|Reading Rights Rightly: The UDHR and its Creeping Influence on the Development of Singapore Public Law|
Thio, Li-ann  Sing JLS 264 (Dec)
The utility of invoking international law to inform the crafting of public law arguments depends on the receptivity of a domestic legal system towards international law. There is in Singapore case law a discernible shift in the judicial approach towards handling international legal arguments, from a clumsy dismissal to a more sophisticated handling of how, in particular, human rights law may influence domestic rights adjudication. This article uses the 2008 case of Re Gavin Millar Q.C. as a springboard to consider how and if the approach of Singapore courts towards receiving and applying human rights norms in public law cases has changed. It discusses the creeping influence of international human rights norms, such as those embodied in the UDHR, in national courts and what this signifies in terms of developing a human rights culture in the thinking and operation of legal actors, such as the bench and bar.
|372. ||DECEMBER 2008 Issue|
|Sexual Abuse and the Limitation of Actions in Tort - A Case for Greater Flexibility?|
Fordham, Margaret  Sing JLS 292 (Dec)
This article examines the provisions of the U.K. and Singapore Limitation Acts with respect to actions in tort. It focuses in particular on the judicial discretion to disregard the relevant limitation period in personal injury cases which is available under the U.K. legislation, but not its Singapore counterpart. Discussing recent cases from both jurisdictions in which this discretion (or the lack thereof) has been at issue, this article goes on to consider the adverse consequences which might result from Singapore's more rigid approach to the limitation of actions, particularly in cases of sexual abuse.
|373. ||DECEMBER 2008 Issue|
|Equity, Obligations and Third Parties|
McFarlane, Ben  Sing JLS 308 (Dec)
In some circumstances, common law or equitable rules may allow the presence of an initial duty owed by A to B to have an effect on a third party, C. This is the case, for example, where C is under a duty not to procure a breach by A of a contractual duty owed by A to B; it is also the case where A's initial duty gives B an "equitable property right". Such cases may seem to call into question the fundamental distinction between personal rights and property rights. Nonetheless, this article argues that we can account for the common law and equitable methods by which an initial duty is allowed to affect a third party whilst preserving that fundamental distinction. To do so, we need to recognise one other category of rights (here called "persistent rights") and a sub-division of personal rights (here called "protected personal rights").
|374. ||DECEMBER 2008 Issue|
|The Iniquity of Equity: A Home-Sharer's Tale|
Wong, Simone  Sing JLS 326 (Dec)
The article is concerned with the application of trusts law in disputes between home-sharers who are cohabitants in England and Wales. It considers the criticisms made of trusts law in dealing with such disputes, and the proposals of the Law Commission for England and Wales in its 2007 Cohabitation Report. However, as plans to introduce any new legislation have been shelved by the British government, cohabitants must continue to rely on trusts law. In the light of these developments, the aim of the article is to critique Equity's response in disputes over the shared home and, more particularly, whether the remedial approach evinced in recent cases will enable trusts law to respond in a fairer manner in these disputes. The article will, however, argue that trusts law remains gender biased because of its continued emphasis on financial contributions, and will thus discriminate disproportionately against female cohabitants.
|375. ||DECEMBER 2008 Issue|
|"Don't Ever Take a Fence Down Until You Know the Reason It Was Put Up" - Singapore Communitarianism and the Case for Conserving 377A|
Lee, C.L. Yvonne  Sing JLS 347 (Dec)
A rare parliamentary petition which sought the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code that criminalises acts of gross indecency between male adults, was presented and debated in Parliament in October 2007. This article critically examines the constitutional law dimension and issues in relation to the 377A debate in Singapore. It highlights the primary jurisprudential thrust of the competing arguments and assumptions. It advances and defends the communitarian case for preserving 377A which the author argues is both normatively desirable and empirically reflective of existing Singapore law and policy. With particular regard to the Singapore context, it reflects on how democratic societies should address questions of law and profound moral disagreement, the importance of civil debate, and whether the legislative or judicial forum is most appropriate for making decisions on morally controversial questions.[Full Text]
|376. ||DECEMBER 2008 Issue|
|The Jurisdiction to Reopen Criminal Cases: A Consideration of the (Criminal) Statutory and Inherent Jurisdiction of the Singapore Court of Appeal|
Goh, Yihan  Sing JLS 395 (Dec)
In criminal cases, it has been emphasised repeatedly that our Court of Appeal is a creature of statute and is hence only seised of the jurisdiction that has been conferred upon it by the relevant provisions in the legislation creating it. This has resulted in the Court of Appeal steadfastly refusing to reopen criminal cases already disposed of finally by way of appeal. However, in the arena of civil cases, the Court of Appeal possesses an inherent jurisdiction, which it uses to achieve a variety of results. Given that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court flows (arguably) not from the nature of cases it is hearing but the status of the Court itself, this article poses the question as to whether the distinction of the Court's inherent jurisdiction across criminal and civil cases is necessarily a sound one, and seeks to provide a possible answer.
|377. ||DECEMBER 2008 Issue|
|Legislation and Case Notes: Strata Title and Commonhold - A Look at Selected Aspects of the Singapore and English Legislation|
Teo, Keang Sood  Sing JLS 420 (Dec)
|378. ||DECEMBER 2008 Issue|
|Legislation and Case Notes: Clarifying Common Intention and Interpreting Section 34: Should There Be a Threshold of Blameworthiness for the Death Penalty?|
Amirthalingam, Kumaralingam  Sing JLS 435 (Dec)
|379. ||DECEMBER 2008 Issue|
|Legislation and Case Notes: Reasonable Suspicion or Real Likelihood: A Question of Semantics?|
Leo, Lionel and Chen, Siyuan  Sing JLS 446 (Dec)
|380. ||DECEMBER 2008 Issue|
|Book Review: The Origins of Reasonable Doubt - Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial by James Q. Whitman|
Ho, Hock Lai  Sing JLS 455 (Dec)