In a recent decision of an Assistant Registrar, it was held for the first time that Singapore courts do not have the power to order ‘pre-arbitral’ discovery. This note considers: (a) the extent to which this conclusion is open to challenge and is desirable; and (b) whether the present approach of characterising a discovery request as either ‘pre-arbitral’or ‘pre-action’is satisfactory. It is suggested that rather than relying on labels, the broad question as to when a court-ordered discovery may be granted in favour of a party who is bound by an arbitration agreement may be answered by adopting a more functional approach: (a) asking whether the causes of action in respect of which discovery is sought falls within the scope of the arbitration clause; (b) frankly recognising that even where the answer is in the affirmative, there may be limited occasions on which the court should grant discovery; and (c) holding that the courts have the inherent jurisdiction to grant discovery requests in these limited circumstances.

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.

The law on deposits in Singapore was recently clarified in Hon Chin Kong v Yip Fook Mun. The court provided a comprehensive framework for payers seeking repayment of sums paid to payees, which should provide clarity and certainty to contractual parties. Indeed, it is now clear that a "true deposit" may be forfeited by the payee. However, the current state of the law has unresolved issues, especially in relation to the interaction of the law on deposits with the penalty rule. This is particularly so in light of the significant developments with respect to the penalty rule in the UK in recent years. It is thus appropriate to examine the decision in Hon Chin Kong, and the possible solutions to these unresolved issues. It is proposed that moving forward, forfeiture of part payments and deposits should be dealt with under the penalty rule, especially if Cavendish is adopted in Singapore.