
SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES


Current Issue - March 2025
- Case and Legislation Notes
Fiduciary Good Faith and The Taxonomy of Duties in The Singapore Court of Appeal: Credit Suisse Trust Limited v Ivanishvili, Bidzina
Citation: [2025] Sing JLS 199First view: [Mar 2025 Online] Sing JLS 1-13In Credit Suisse Trust Limited v Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others, the Singapore Court of Appeal rejected the proposition that a fiduciary’s duty of good faith is exclusively proscriptive, holding that this duty is not only a fiduciary duty but also has several prescriptive dimensions. This Comment examines the theoretical and practical implications of the decision both as regards the duty of good faith and the broader taxonomy of fiduciary duties and remedies in Singapore law. - Case and Legislation Notes
Rethinking the Standard of Proof for Adultery in Divorce Law: WQX v WQW
Citation: [2025] Sing JLS 212First view: [Mar 2025 Online] Sing JLS 1-8In divorce proceedings, a party to a marriage may seek to satisfy the court that the marriage has irretrievably broken down by proving, inter alia, that the other party has committed adultery. But what is the standard of proof for adultery? In WQX v WQW, the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) found that the wife had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the husband had committed adultery, but it queried whether the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt for adultery, which applied in the past, is still warranted today. It is submitted that there are indeed strong arguments in favour of lowering the standard of proof for adultery from the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt to the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. - Case and Legislation Notes
The State and The Federation: Forum and Standing in Federal-State Constitutional Disputes: Sabah Law Society v Government of Malaysia Attorney General, Malaysia v Sabah Law Society
Citation: [2025] Sing JLS 220First view: [Mar 2023 Online] Sing JLS 1-12This Note discusses the application for judicial review initiated by the Sabah Law Society in respect of special grant reviews and payments between the Federation of Malaysia and the State of Sabah under Articles 112C and 112D of the Malaysian Federal Constitution. It is argued that the Malaysian High Court in granting leave to commence judicial review proceedings, and the Court of Appeal in upholding the High Court’s decision, ought to have considered whether the rights of the State of Sabah could be enforced by the Sabah Law Society in judicial review proceedings before the High Court. The Note concludes that any dispute on the special grant ought to be resolved in proceedings between the Federation and the State concerned and falls within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Malaysian Federal Court.