At a time when "stateless income" is the main tax imperative, this article analyses the challenges of internationalising taxation of multinational enterprises in the digital economy and traversing the normative solutions provided so far (and still to be provided) by both coordinated and unilateral rules and policies. In such a way, this article is therefore firmly entrenched at an important intersection of comparative and business law. Considering that the main problem for tax authorities might be that they have remained national - and landlocked - whereas multinational enterprises operate globally - and virtually, this article also brings into the analysis the connected issues of free trade, globalization, and State sovereignty. The article demonstrates the necessity for international and multilateral solutions such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project's "Two-Pillar" solution and explains how this solution can be supplemented by other multilateral reforms.

The mandatory death penalty for murder was changed in Singapore in 2012 to give judges the discretion to choose between imposing the death penalty or life imprisonment (with caning) in cases of non-intentional murder. This article reviews the sentences for murder since then and the factors considered by the courts to justify the use of the death penalty or not. The move from an inherently arbitrary mandatory regime to a discretionary one was a watershed moment in Singapore, and it is questioned if the time has come for the death penalty for murder to be abolished completely.

In Marex and Miao Weiguo, the majority of the UK Supreme Court and the Singapore Court of Appeal opted for simplicity in the form of a bright-line preclusion against recovery of reflective loss by shareholders, ie, losses taking the form of a diminution in the value of shareholding and/or distributions. This article examines the law prior to these significant decisions, sets out the key points and reasoning of the courts, and upon critical examination, respectfully suggests that the law is seeing something that does not exist: there is no such thing as an independent principle of ‘reflective loss'.

Under Singapore's companies legislation, shareholders are vested with significant powers, placing them in the position to play an important monitoring role. Although there are discernible corporate governance benefits to encouraging shareholders to take on a more participatory role, many have argued against shareholder empowerment. Indeed, it is often asserted that shareholders are ill-equipped to play any role in corporate governance for a variety of reasons, including the generally-held view that shareholders, in particular retail investors, are rationally apathetic. The situation is presumed to be exacerbated in Singapore's "concentrated shareholding" corporate environment. In this research, we sought empirical data to assess the state of shareholder involvement in Singapore and whether information technologies, especially manifested in the form of social media, will have any effect on shareholder behaviour. Our purpose is to reach a view as to whether the superior position statutorily accorded to shareholders in Singapore is ultimately largely aspirational where public or retail shareholders are concerned. This paper presents our results and analysis.

The complex relationship between negligence and autonomy is of increasing practical and theoretical interest, as is shown by recent cases such as Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, Shaw v Kovac [2017] EWCA Civ 1028 and ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 20. My discussion of this relationship divides into three parts. In the first part, I make some general observations about the relationship between negligence law and autonomy. In the second part, I argue that interference with autonomy per se should not be recognised as a form of damage that grounds a negligence claim, although I acknowledge that it may be useful for the law to recognise specific forms of autonomy loss as damage in this sense. And in the third and final part, I consider the uneasy relationship between negligence doctrine and patient autonomy in the law of liability for medical non-disclosure, and argue that as a result of recent developments, this may no longer be properly described as liability for negligence.

Cryptoassets, now in the mainstream with significant retail and institutional ownership, can be purchased on cryptoasset exchanges online from around the world. Correspondingly, disputes involving transnational cryptoasset transactions - which have already begun to crop up in the US - are likely to become increasingly common in Singapore given its status as a global financial hub. The problem, however, is that there is no global consensus on how to determine the applicable law for transnational transactions on cryptoasset exchanges. This lack of consensus engenders unnecessary uncertainty as to the disputing parties' rights and obligations, which in turn has significant implications for issuers, potential investors, regulators, and even the entire financial system. Building on the shortcomings of existing conflict of laws solutions in other jurisdictions, this article proposes a conflict of laws solution to this problem for the Singapore courts. The solution entails (1) recognising that the problem should be dealt with using a choice-of-law approach, (2) creating a new category of issues, 'market issues', as which issues may be collectively characterised, and (3) choosing only the lex mercatus for issues characterised as market issues.

Judicial case management is a delicate work of art. On one hand, it is said that justice hurried is justice buried. The courts must carefully adjudicate each case based on its merits to ensure that an accurate outcome would be realised. To this end, judges are often concerned with obtaining all available evidence before assessing each claim. Yet, on the other hand, it has been remarked that justice delayed is justice denied. As such, the courts are also mindful that cases must move along in a fairly expeditious manner. The prevailing attitude of both English and Singapore courts is therefore to balance the enforcement of procedural discipline with the imperative to judge a case on its substantive merits. This article argues that such a "balancing" approach is not the most appropriate philosophy to adopt. Instead, it proposes a "lexical priority" approach where procedural discipline occupies a prior position to substantive justice, preceding the latter by way of a precondition. It offers justifications for the "lexical priority" approach and exposes the shortcomings of the "balancing" approach by examining the English and Singapore jurisprudence on case management.

In earlier cases, the non-satisfaction of pre-arbitration requirements has been analysed by the Singapore and English courts by reference to the issue of conditions precedent. It was assumed without argument that, if a requirement was construed as a condition precedent, the failure to satisfy that requirement would deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction. More recently, English and Hong Kong case law has focused on a different issue, asking whether the failure to meet the pre-arbitration requirement affects the tribunal's jurisdiction or the admissibility of the claim. This case note analyses whether the Singapore courts should follow suit.

This note reviews the Court of Appeal decision in VJP v VJQ on whether an appellate court should recompute the spouses' percentage shares of a reduced matrimonial pool after excluding certain assets from the matrimonial pool determined by the lower court. While the Court of Appeal's positive answer to this question provides welcome clarification on the application of the ANJ v ANK structured approach in the appellate context, this note argues that the Court of Appeal's analysis is overly arithmetical and inconsistent with the broad-brush approach towards the division of matrimonial assets. At a broader level, the existing complexities inherent in the ANJ v ANK structured approach, coupled with the multiple caveats and unresolved issues in VJP v VJQ, raise questions as to whether the ANJ v ANK structured approach is the best approach in ensuring that matrimonial disputes between spouses are resolved harmoniously.

As cryptocurrencies continue to take the world by storm, reactions from a legal perspective are to be expected. In CLM v CLN [2022] SGHC 46, the Singapore High Court agreed with the emerging Commonwealth view that cryptocurrencies can constitute property. This note explores the possible legal consequences of such a holding and attempts to answer some novel questions that may need to be addressed as technology continues to evolve over time.