In Hui Chun Ping v Hui Kau Mo (2024) 27 HKCFAR 634, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal considered whether an agent who acquired a secret profit in breach of fiduciary duty could raise a limitation defence. Lord Hoffmann NPJ decided that the claim against the agent did not fall within s 20(1)(b) of the Limitation Ordinance and was subject to a limitation period. This Note makes two comments on his reasoning. First, it argues that Lord Hoffmann’s recourse to the historical roots of the limitation statute should be commended, even if his articulation of it was not without its shortcomings. Second, it critiques Lord Hoffmann’s unsatisfactorily equivocal answer to whether the limitation period arose by analogy or directly under s 20(2) of the Limitation Ordinance. It suggests that it would have been desirable for him to clarify that the limitation period in Hui arose by analogy only.

Vicarious liability claims have often stirred controversy, as liability is being imposed on a party_x000D_ which is not responsible for the tortious conduct. This is especially so, as the law on vicarious_x000D_ liability has been expanding over the past few years to include an increasing scope of relationships and circumstances. This case comment looks at two decisions of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in 2020 which took a step back from this expansionary approach and introduces new constraints. In examining the desirability of these changes and comparing them with the position in Singapore, it is hoped that new perspectives will be gained to clarify this unsettled area of the law.

Due to her colonial history, Singapore has inherited the English common law prohibition_x000D_ against maintenance and champerty. Maintenance refers to the officious intermeddling in litigation. Champerty is a particular form of maintenance where one party agrees to assist another to bring a claim such that the former shall receive a share of what may be recovered in the litigation. Criminal and civil liability for champerty was, however, abolished in England by virtue of the United Kingdom's ("U.K") Criminal Law Act 1967, subject that "any rule of that law as to the cases in which a contract is to be treated as contrary to public policy or otherwise illegal" would not be affected. Subsequently, the U.K. permitted a litigant to employ "a person providing advocacy or litigation services" under a conditional fee agreement,and has, in recent legislative amendments, even allowed damage-based agreements akin to the United States-style contingency fees. These U.K. statutory developments are, however, not applicable to Singapore. Thus, the prohibition against champerty and conditional fees remains firmly part of the Singapore legal landscape, albeit with an important judicial exception to such a prohibition, as the case below demonstrates.