|581. ||JULY 2000 Issue|
|Res Ipsa Loquitur: Some Recent Cases in Singapore and its Future|
Trindade, Francis & Tan, Keng Feng  Sing JLS 186 (Jul)
Res ipsa loquitur applies when a plaintiff who is injured in an accident does not know the precise cause of the accident and has to rely on the occurrence of the accident itself, as an event which does not happen in the ordinary course of things without the negligence, to infer negligence on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff in such a situation is relying on circumstantial or indirect evidence to raise a prima facie case of negligence against the defendant. Used in this way, res ipsa loquitur is an ordinary rule of evidence and it is not peculiar to the tort of negligence. Recent cases in Singapore have adopted this view of the effect of res ipsa loquitur and a Supreme Court of Canada decision has recently held that the Latin phrase employed in this way is useless and confusing, and should be abandoned in the tort of negligence. However, res ipsa loquitur has been used in some older English cases as something beyond a general rule of evidence. It is a unique and a substantive rule of law that shifts the legal burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant. On this application of res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff raises a prima facie case against the defendant from which a court must, at the conclusion of the case, infer negligence, unless the defendant gives a reasonable explanation to disprove the presumption of negligence against him. The defendant is prevented by this use of the doctrine as a special rule of law from exploiting his exclusive and advantageous knowledge of the exact cause of an accident to the detriment of a plaintiff. The issue that is confronted in this article is whether res ipsa loquitur should perish in Singapore as something that merely signifies an ordinary rule of evidence or survive as a unique rule of law in the tort of negligence to correct the imbalance of knowledge that arises in the appropriate cases of proof of negligence by circumstantial evidence.
|582. ||JULY 2000 Issue|
|The Just and Equitable Division of Gains between Equal Former Partners in Marriage|
Leong, Wai Kum  Sing JLS 208 (Jul)
Marriage is an equal partnership of efforts so the spouses contribute equally in acquiring property whether by making payment or by homemaking and child caring. A just and equitable division of matrimonial assets, the gains of partnership, at its dissolution should therefore generally be an equal division. This article supports the proposition. First from discussion of a recent decision where the Family Court approved and the High Court on appeal disapproved of it. Then from a more general discussion of the current law in Singapore of the division of matrimonial assets on divorce.
|583. ||JULY 2000 Issue|
|When Experts Disagree|
Hor, Michael  Sing JLS 241 (Jul)
It has long been recognised that when expert witnesses disagree on a matter within their expertise, the court is placed in an unsatisfactory situation of having to choose between experts in a matter which is not within the competence of the judge. This article examines some recent cases where the court has had to make such a choice. It will try to pin down exactly how the court made that choice, and to ask it the way in which the judges break the expert deadlock is satisfactory. Some reform proposals are discussed briefly.
|584. ||JULY 2000 Issue|
|Privacy in Employment|
Chandran,Ravi  Sing JLS 263 (Jul)
This article examines whether in Singapore an employee has a general right of privacy in the employment context and if there is no such right, whether privacy can nonetheless be enforced through indirect means.
|585. ||JULY 2000 Issue|
|A New-Found Significance for Non-Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements?|
Tan, Seow Hon  Sing JLS 298 (Jul)
This article examines the English and local cases dealing with the jurisdiction agreements that point non-exclusively to a particular forum. It considers the effect the law has accorded, and should accord, to such agreements in two main contexts: the granting of leave for service out of jurisdiction or the stay of proceedings commenced in the local forum, as the case may be, and the granting of anti-suit injunctions to restrain parties from commencing or continuing with foreign proceedings in non-contractual fora. It argues that an approach sensitive to the parties' intention for having such agreements, the inference of which depends on the finding of particular factors in each case, would perhaps provide the best guide for the effect the law should accord to such agreements.
|586. ||JULY 2000 Issue|
|Book Review: Civil Justice in Singapore by Jeffrey Pinsler|
Chan, Leng Sun  Sing JLS 331 (Jul)
|587. ||JULY 2000 Issue|
|Book Review: Stamp Duty in Singapore by Leung Yew Kwong|
Leow, Chye Sian  Sing JLS 333 (Jul)
|588. ||JULY 2000 Issue|
|Book Review: Asia-Pacific Legal Development (edited by Douglas Johnston and Gerry Ferguson)|
Yeo, Stanley  Sing JLS 335 (Jul)
|589. ||JULY 2000 Issue|
|Book Review: Law of Life, Motor and Workmen's Compensation Insurance (Fifth Edition by Poh Chu Chai)|
Lee, Kiat Seng  Sing JLS 337 (Jul)
|590. ||JULY 2000 Issue|
|Book Review: Singapore Planning Law - Commentary on the Planning Act 1998 by Malcolm Grant|
Christudason, Alice  Sing JLS 338 (Jul)