Singapore Journal of Legal Studies NUS
   
 
SEARCH  ARCHIVE
Browse/Advanced Search
 
Archive
Search All [Advanced]
Exact Phrase    All Words    Any Word
Search Title [Basic]
Search Author
Search Abstract
Search Publication Date
Return    records per page   
2249 records match your query:

291.  JULY 2009 Issue
p.257

Legislation and Case Notes: Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2007: Rape Within Marriage
Chan Wing Cheong  •  [2009] Sing JLS 257 (Jul)
The former section 375 of the Singaporean Penal Code contained an exception which stated that "sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife ...is not rape". This has been commonly interpreted to mean that it was not possible to convict a husband of the offence of rape on his wife under any circumstances so long as they remain legally married. The only qualification to the blanket immunity for husbands is that the wife must not be under 13 years of age. For example, one commentator wrote: In Singapore ... under no circumstances would a husband be guilty of the rape of his wife so long as she is not under thirteen years of age. The only possible exception might be where the court has granted a decree nisi of divorce although even this is doubtful.

292.  JULY 2009 Issue
p.272

Legislation and Case Notes: A Probable Reform of Consideration
Wu Zhuang-Hui  •  [2009] Sing JLS 272 (Jul)
Because so much academic ink has been spilt on the doctrine of consideration over so very many decades (with no concrete action being taken) and because there is ...such a dearth of cases on the doctrine itself, it would appear that any proposed reform of the doctrine is much ado about nothing ...However, because the doctrine of consideration does contain certain basic weaknesses which have been pointed out, in extenso, in the relevant legal literature, it almost certainly needs to be reformed. The basic difficulties and alternatives have been set out briefly above but will need to be considered in much greater detail when the issue next comes squarely before this court.

293.  JULY 2009 Issue
p.283

Legislation and Case Notes: Imbree v. McNeilly: A View from Singapore
Goh Yihan  •  [2009] Sing JLS 283 (Jul)
In Imbree v. McNeilly, the High Court of Australia ruled that a learner driver is no longer to be held to the standard of a reasonable but unqualified (and inexperienced) driver in negligence claims. This overrules Cook v. Cook in this aspect and necessitates changes in tort textbooks which have very often cited Cook in direct contrast with the English position as embodied in Nettleship v. Weston. The contrast, which the textbooks have traditionally drawn, is used to illustrate the principle that the objective standard of care required by the law is one that relates to the type of activity in which the defendant is engaged, rather than the category of actor to which the defendant belongs. Thus, whereas the English Court of Appeal in Nettleship regarded that driving a motor vehicle requires the driver to be adjudged by the standard of a competent driver, the High Court of Australia in Cook was prepared to look to the individual characteristics of the defendant as evincing a "special relationship" with the plaintiff, to which effect was given by lowering the standard of care. This distinction has now been erased in Imbree, which concerned a claim by a passenger against an inexperienced driver of his car for injuries suffered. Imbree is certainly an important decision whose significance will surely find resonance in varied areas of tort law in time to come. It is the modest aim of this case note to show that Imbree, while a decision on a narrow point, in fact hints at a larger difficulty in the ascertainment of the standard of care in individual cases. It is in this context that it will be suggested that, when the time comes for Singapore.

294.  JULY 2009 Issue
p.290

Book Review: Global Privacy Protection: The First Generation by James B. Rule and Graham Greenleaf, eds.
Daniel Seng  •  [2009] Sing JLS 290 (Jul)

295.  JULY 2009 Issue
p.294

Book Review: Corporate Rescue Law - An Anglo-American Perspective by Gerard McCormack
Wee Meng Seng  •  [2009] Sing JLS 294 (Jul)

296.  JULY 2009 Issue
p.296

Book Review: Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, eds.
Goh Yihan  •  [2009] Sing JLS 296 (Jul)

297.  DECEMBER 2008 Issue
p.229

Which Side "Ought to Win"? - Discretion and Certainty in Property Law
Walker, Robert  •  [2008] Sing JLS 229 (Dec)
Viewed as a remedy, the function of the constructive trust is not to render superfluous, but to reflect and enforce, the principles of the law of equity. Thus it is that there is no place in the law of this country for the notion of 'a constructive trust of a new model' which 'by whatever name it is described ... is ... Imposed by law whenever justice and good conscience requires it.' Under the law of this country - as, I venture to think, under the present law of England - proprietary rights fall to be governed by principles of law and not by some mix of judicial discretion, subjective views about 'which party ought to win' and 'the formless void of individual moral opinion.' Long before Lord Seldon's anachronism identifying the Chancellor's foot and the measure of Chancery relief, undefined notions of 'justice' and what was 'fair' had given way in the law of equity to the rule of ordered principle which is of the essence of any coherent system of rational law.

298.  DECEMBER 2008 Issue
p.241

The Insanity Defence in the Criminal Laws of the Commonwealth of Nations
Yeo, Stanley  •  [2008] Sing JLS 241 (Dec)
This article compares the M'Naghten Rules and some of the principal variations found in the Commonwealth of Nations for the purpose of formulating the best possible provision on the defence of insanity. The discussion is enhanced by evaluations of the concept of diminished responsibility operating in the Commonwealth, and of the provision on insanity in the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
[Full Text]

299.  DECEMBER 2008 Issue
p.264

Reading Rights Rightly: The UDHR and its Creeping Influence on the Development of Singapore Public Law
Thio, Li-ann  •  [2008] 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.

300.  DECEMBER 2008 Issue
p.292

Sexual Abuse and the Limitation of Actions in Tort - A Case for Greater Flexibility?
Fordham, Margaret  •  [2008] 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.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225