|451. ||DECEMBER 2003 Issue|
|Time Restriction on Divorce in Singapore|
Ong, Debbie S. L.  Sing JLS 418 (Dec)
In Singapore, no petition for divorce is permitted in the first three years of marriage unless leave of court is given on the basis that the case is one of exceptional hardship suffered by the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent. This article examines the purpose of the three-year restriction on divorce and whether its retention in Singapore continues to promote the best interests of family members affected. It suggests that a shorter period of restriction, without exceptions, be adopted. A brief survey of the marriage relationship and the recent patterns of divorce in Singapore is also made here.
|452. ||DECEMBER 2003 Issue|
|False Imprisonment and Prisoners: A Question of Justice or Law?|
Fordham, Margaret  Sing JLS 444 (Dec)
In recent years, the English courts have reached seemingly contradictory decisions with respect to the rights of convicted prisoners to sue for false imprisonment when they are detained beyond their proper release date. This article examines those decisions- focusing, in particular, on the most recent case in this area- and concludes that, as the law currently stands, the rules governing this aspect of tort law are both arbitrary and unfair. The article also considers the likelihood or otherwise of actions by similarly aggrieved prisoners succeeding in Singapore.
|453. ||DECEMBER 2003 Issue|
|The Post-September 11 Fallout in Singapore and Malaysia: Prospects for an Accommodative Liberalism|
Ramraj, Victor V.  Sing JLS 459 (Dec)
This paper argues that the new heightened consciousness of terrorism in Singapore and Malaysia requires a more accommodative, but still distinctly liberal, approach to social and political rights, one which harnesses the strengths of liberal democracy and pluralism in its efforts to suppress both the threat of terrorism and its potential socially divisive consequences. In particular, the paper defends the view that liberalism, properly conceived, has the conceptual tools to accommodate cultural and religious differences and provides an antidote to the divisive, essentialist thinking that the tragic events of September 11 have unleashed.
|454. ||DECEMBER 2003 Issue|
|Internet Defamation and Choice of Law in Dow Jones & Company v. Gutnick|
Chan, Gary Kok Yew  Sing JLS 483 (Dec)
This article focuses on choice of law in the context of Internet defamation with reference to a recent Australian High Court decision, Dow Jones v. Gutnick. The case raised a myriad of issues ranging from comparative defamation laws (and values systems) of the United States versus Australia, the meaning of "publication" and the need for Internet-specific legal reforms. These issues interact with and have an impact upon the choice of law problem. This article discusses the various alternatives for resolving the choice of law problem. It concludes by tentatively recommending some choice of law rules in the context of Internet defamation.
|455. ||DECEMBER 2003 Issue|
|Is There a Defence of Public Interest in the Law of Copyright in Singapore?|
Saw, Cheng Lim  Sing JLS 519 (Dec)
This article essentially examines the question as to whether there is any basis, in principle, for the existence and application of an extra-statutory defence based on the general public interest in the law of copyright in Singapore. The article begins by tracing the history of the defence of public interest that is sometimes raised by defendants in actions for copyright infringement in England. It looks at how the defence at common law- and whether correctly or not- found its way into the U.K. Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 and examines the interpretation accorded to it by the English courts. Adopting a comparative approach, the article then examines the issue from the Australian perspective and concludes by asking how Singapore should approach the question of public interest in our domestic law of copyright.
|456. ||DECEMBER 2003 Issue|
|Revisiting ex parte James|
Chan, Tracey Evans  Sing JLS 557 (Dec)
There has been much judicial and academic debate over the proper scope of and rationale underlying the principle in ex parte James, and in particular its conferral of de facto insolvency priority on the successful claimant. This article attempts to review the principle's operation in the context of the function and principles of insolvency law, determine the actual role that it plays in dealing with post-insolvency claims and accordingly identify the justifications that can be offered for this role. It argues that the principle is better seen as an application of the liquidation expenses principle or the fair treatment of certain post-insolvency claims.
|457. ||DECEMBER 2003 Issue|
|Making No Custody Order: Re G (Guardianship of an infant)|
Ong, Debbie S. L.  Sing JLS 583 (Dec)
|458. ||DECEMBER 2003 Issue|
|Non-Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses-Changing Approaches? Asia-Pacific Ventures II Limited v. P.T. Intimutiara Gasindo; Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale v. Kong Kok Keong|
Lee, Joel  Sing JLS 593 (Dec)
|459. ||DECEMBER 2003 Issue|
|Dr Khoo James & Anor. V. Gunapathy d/o Muniandy & another appeal: Implications for the Evaluation of Expert Testimony|
Sim, Disa  Sing JLS 601 (Dec)
|460. ||DECEMBER 2003 Issue|
|Bolam in Singapore: Special Treatment for Doctors? Dr. Khoo James & Anor v. Gunapathy d/o Muniandy & another appeal|
Low, Fatt Kin Kelvin and Lee, Yuan Zhen  Sing JLS 610 (Dec)