The requirement that claims in negligence for psychiatric injury must stem from shock-induced damage is both artificial and arbitrary. For this reason, the "shock" requirement has been rejected by the High Court of Australia. However, shock-induced injury continues to be a key criterion in both the U.K. and Singapore, at least in cases not involving medical negligence. This article examines the history of the shock requirement and its application in all three jurisdictions. It concludes that, while the Australian position is to be preferred, there is no immediate indication that the law in either the U.K. or Singapore is likely to be modified to remove the requirement.

In this article an effort is made to explain the policy factors that influence the enactment of the provisions on "cheating" in the Singapore Penal Code. Explanations are also offered as to the manner in which these provisions ought to be interpreted for purposes of ascertaining the offence of "cheating" in cases that involve dishonoured cheques.

Holmes expressed doubts about the viability of Agency as a subject. This paper suggests that the law of Agency has a valid central core providing for the external powers of agents and their internal relations with their principals, surrounded by a considerable number of areas where agency principles are applied, but incompletely. There is a progression from the more central cases to situations where the agency analogy is weak or even sometimes misleading. In these extended applications it can be said that agency reasoning is only a tool requiring to be used with caution or even not used at all: but when the tool is acceptably used, features of the core of agency reasoning are still recognisably present.

This article looks at the question of trading in the Singapore and Malaysian contexts. The focus in on transactions in real property. It seeks to establish that, contrary to what has been argued, an isolated transaction in real property can amount to the carrying on of a trade or a business under the Singapore Income Tax Act. Reference is made to relevant Malaysian cases on the matter. This article further examines the factors which the Singapore and Malaysian courts (including the Income Tax Board of Review and Special Commissioners, as the case may be) take into consideration in determining whether a trade/business has been carried on. A proper assessment of these factors is most crucial so as to steer clear of the pitfalls of trading.