This article presents a critical analysis of the approach of the U.S. Supreme Court to recusal motions aimed at one of the Justices of the Court. The catalyst was the controversy arising from the weekend duck-hunting trip of U.S.Vice-President Richard Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, after which Justice Scalia denied a motion to recuse himself from a pending case in which his hunting partner, Mr Cheney, was a party. This startling decision is final and conclusive since the Supreme Court refuses to intervene in such decisions. Such an approach by the Court is untenable and contrasts starkly with that of the House of Lords, which did not shrink from disqualifying Lord Hoffmann on grounds of bias in the Pinochet case. A comparative study of comparable common law jurisdictions exposes the U.S. Supreme Court as an island of isolation over this issue. It also provides accessible solutions that are disarming in their simplicity. The particular responses that are commended in this article are formalized self-regulation and substitution.

This article draws upon lawand social science research in examining the private and public spheres in parenting children. It argues for state intervention in cases where evidence of acts can be marked out with clear consensus as constituting abuse or ill-treatment. Beyond this, there is a substantially large area of uncertainty, a 'thick grey line', within which it is not always clear whether parents' behaviour should be regarded as abuse or ill-treatment. 'Better safe than sorry' is an inappropriate adage for supporting intervention in the 'thick grey line'. The law should guard against being overzealous in interfering in the parent and child relationship. Suggestions are made on reform of the statutory provisions on child protection as well as how the court may, under the current provisions, be guided to make appropriate orders in this area.

The advent of computer technology has made banking more convenient to the consumer. As in the case of many other financial centres in the world, computer technology has been introduced in Singapore. The government is encouraging the use of electronic transfer of funds as it cuts back on paperwork and is perceived to be more productive. Such technology, as it relates to consumer banking, finds expression in the form of automated teller machines (ATMs), electronic funds transfer at the point of sale (EFTPOS), GIRO systems and home telephone banking. This article discusses some legal issues arising from the use of ATMs and EFTPOS and approaches them from the viewpoint of the bank and its cardholder.

This article examines the availability of exemplary or punitive damages in Singapore. The position at common law is examined, together with relevant statutory provisions. The law in England on punitive damages is not logical and has not been followed in major common law jurisdictions. It seems to have been followed here without detailed argument. It is argued that it should not be followed in Singapore, and that the law should not only operate to provide compensation after damage has been suffered. Punitive damages can play a useful role in protecting some rights and interests by deterring some types of conduct.

Blockchain technology is the cornerstone of FinTech. Blockchains offer the infrastructure for online platforms which store information and digital assets. Distributed ledgers are about to be employed everywhere. Regulators have opted for a regulatory sandbox approach which demonstrates the need for efficient private law rules to fill potential lacunae. This paper identifies the crucial parameters for ascertaining the private law foundations of blockchain technology and its applications. Aspects of contract and property laws will be assessed in order to determine whether digital assets are capable of acquiring erga omnes status. This will include a survey of current blockchain statutes and potential negative externalities of a blockchain which might trigger liability of its members.

Discovery before action is a relatively recent development in Singapore and other common law countries and is now well established. However, case law has yet to determine whether a party to an arbitration agreement is entitled to discovery prior to arbitration. This issue raises various questions concerning the nature of arbitration legislation and the Rules of Court, and the extent of the court's inherent powers.