• postimage

    01:18 PM Rachael Seow (LLB 4 candidate, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore); Justin Tan (Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore)

    A Tale of Three (Tax) Provisions: Delimiting the Boundaries of Executive Authority and the Precedent Fact Doctrine

    It is commonplace for statutes to give executive bodies the discretion to grant, withhold or set conditions for obtaining certain benefits provided by the statute. This contribution argues that not all discretions are created equal; instead, the provision conferring such discretion must always be carefully examined to delimit the boundaries of such discretion. ...

  • postimage

    10:26 AM Jasper Hayden Chan (LL.M. (Nott Trent); LL.B. , Singapore Management University)

    All Of The Obligations, None Of The Rights – Who Will Step Up For The Step-parents?

    This article aims to review the legal status of a step-parent in Singapore, to embark on a cross-jurisdictional analysis and hopes to propose some ideas for legal review on this under-discussed issue....

  • postimage

    11:03 PM Kee En Chong (Attorney-General’s Chambers, Singapore)

    Causation in medical negligence: Armstrong, Carol Ann v Quest Laboratories Pte Ltd [2020] 1 SLR 133; [2019] SGCA 75

    The philosopher Immanuel Kant once observed that while human minds cannot help but think in terms of cause-and-effect, the true nature of causation remains shrouded from our understanding. ...

  • postimage

    04:59 PM Shriram Jayakumar (Associate, Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow)

    When will the reflection show: Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31

    When a defendant has wronged a company, the Reflective Loss Principle bars a shareholder of the company from bringing a personal action against the defendant to recover a reduction in the value of his shares. Such a factual matrix arose in the English Court of Appeal’s decision in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (No 2) [1982] Ch 204 (“Prudential”), which is widely regarded...

  • postimage

    01:39 PM Ben Chester Cheong (LLM (Cambridge); LLB (1st Class Hons) (Exeter); Lecturer of Law, SUSS) and Poh Chee Eng (BSc (Hons) (Essex); Dip, Law & Management, Temasek Polytechnic; JD Candidate, SUSS)

    Oppression – personal wrongs or corporate wrongs: A commentary on Ascend Field Pte Ltd and others v Tee Wee Sien and another appeal [2020] SGCA 14

    Historically, an aggrieved minority shareholder, “X”, is faced with two primary conundrum, (a) X does not have standing to sue an errant director or require the board to account as a result of the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 (“Foss v Harbottle”); and (b) companies operate on the basis of majority rule (see Pearlie Koh, Company Law (LexisNexis, 2017) at para 6.5). The law has come a ...