This study examines the extent to which “an interest in the proceeds of sale of land” is able to be protected by a caveat, under s 115(3)(a) of the LTA. To this end, the history of the LTA and case law are studied to identify the legislative intent behind s 115(3)(a). Various issues such as the scope of a caveatable interest and lack of definitions in the LTA, among other challenges, are identified and consolidated. This study then proposes the use of the “definite entitlement” test as an extension of the statue for greater clarity.

Although Singapore has legalised sports betting since 1999 and the sector involves billions of dollars, it lacks specific legislation regulating the misuse of inside information in sports betting, one of the two most common forms of match manipulation observed internationally and a recognised money laundering risk. This regulatory gap could be exploited, especially as developments in other jurisdictions reveal emerging legal and policy challenges that Singapore’s existing anti-corruption laws cannot fully address. These implications remain unexamined in the Singapore context and this article seeks to fill that gap by examining these challenges, identifying existing regulatory approaches, and proposing a Hybrid Information-Connected Approach, inspired by Singapore’s financial insider trading laws, for Singapore to consider adopting. By identifying and defining this hybrid approach, this article aims to contribute a framework for future regulatory development in sports betting and support Singapore’s efforts to uphold sports integrity and strengthen its anti-money laundering regime.

A common thread underlying many clinical legal education initiatives – to support access-to-justice imperatives – is interwoven with broader policy initiatives within a legal system to develop its pro bono legal service channels for the benefit of the wider community. The former can make meaningful contributions towards the pursuit of the latter, while the flourishing of the latter can create valuable opportunities for the growth of the former. This article explores the potential for a closer alignment between the pro bono activities of Community Legal Clinics and the development of clinical legal education initiatives within Singapore’s law schools, analysing empirical data from the author’s experience volunteering at a legal clinic alongside undergraduate law students to formulate recommendations that may generate desired outcomes on both fronts.

The two principal remedies in corporate law against abusive conduct toward minorities are the derivative action and the oppression action. The former allows a proper complainant to seek relief on behalf of the company while the latter provides non-controlling shareholders with various personal remedies where they establish oppressive conduct. The courts have recently proposed a distinction between an “essentially corporate wrong” (which members may purportedly only rectify under the derivative action) and a “personal wrong” (which is purportedly the only valid basis for the oppression action). It is suggested that focusing on the nature of the wrong is untenable given commercial realities that a wrong to a company can also readily prejudice members’ rights. Instead, the emphasis should be on the agreement or understanding of the parties and the specific reliefs being sought.

Cases all around the world have had to deal with statutory changes that have diluted capital maintenance rules. The duty on directors to act in the best interest of the company has had to fill the gap in situations in which returns to shareholders (even where enlightened) are no longer the only concern. Recent decisions on creditor interests in the vicinity of insolvency in the UK and Singapore are contrasted. The suggestion is that any indirect “creditor duty” is hard to specify and enforce given the continued focus on the company and its shareholders. Instead, the focus should shift from the company’s interest to the proper exercise of powers by directors viewed against the various statutory obligations of companies (that remain) in or around insolvency.

Which law governs assets recorded on the blockchain? This question has long eluded legal academia and practice. Now, states have begun to enact hard and fast rules. This contribution compares legislative provisions of a number of states and a recently adopted text by UNIDROIT. The analysis of these rules shows the emergence of a new gulf in the conflict of laws. This gap must be overcome before the differences are further entrenched and reciprocated by other states which have not yet regulated the question. The means to do so is a uniform text of conflict of laws. An attempt will be made to distill an “ideal” conflicts rule for digital assets from the existing provisions. The proposal made here can serve as a blueprint for national legislation or case law. It is hoped that it will lead to a worldwide consensus in determining the law applicable to digital assets.

The speed at which hyperlinks enable information to be disseminated poses challenges to legal regulation. In particular, major concerns arise over whether adherence to the Traditional Publication Rule would result in widespread liability. This paper explores how various jurisdictions have opted to tackle the issue of defamation via hyperlinks and highlights a shift towards a publisher-centric inquiry. This paper concludes by arguing that this shift is fundamentally at odds with the principles underlying the element of publication, and provides suggestions for how Singapore can consider approaching this issue moving forward.

The immunity against Crown liability was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1948 based on the Diceyan notion of rule of law and deemed equality under the law between public officials and private persons. This paper analyses government vicarious liability in respect of the acts and omissions of public officers under the Singapore Government Proceedings Act with reference to the concept of deemed equality. We will discuss the scope of the statute in light of recent common law developments in vicarious liability, statutory exceptions to government vicarious liability that may be justified by the functions of the government in the discharge of military and judicial duties, the case of police duties, and whether government vicarious liability should be exempted in cases involving the exercise of public duties and prosecutorial responsibilities.

This article seeks to further clarify the following issues on indefeasibility: (1) the availability of the remedy of specific performance in an LTA, s 47(3) situation; (2) the applicability of constructive trusts in post-registration fraudulent situations; and (3) the power of the courts to rectify the land-register under LTA, s 160. The discussion will attempt to provide a principled and just approach in resolving the conundrums posed by these loose ends.

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked significant debate, particularly regarding the relationship between generative AI (GenAI) and copyright. Indeed, GenAI appears to challenge every layer of copyright protection. Our analysis focuses on the tensions surrounding the use of copyrighted works to train AI models. Since AI training relies on vast amounts of data, two conflicting interests emerge. On one hand, copyright can act as a major barrier to entry, potentially stifling the next wave of technological innovation. On the other hand, GenAI systems may pose an existential threat to creative industries by replicating human creativity and producing literary and artistic works faster and at lower costs. Against this backdrop, policymakers worldwide are striving to balance these seemingly opposing interests. While most discussions focus on why and how copyright holders should be compensated, this article examines when compensation is appropriate. To this end, it advocates for a competition-based approach in assessing the application of copyright limitations and exceptions. Specifically, it argues that antitrust tools can help courts and policymakers determine when creators suffer commercial harm and when AI-generated content may be considered a substitute for human creations.