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.

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.

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.

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.

Despite more than ten years since Competition Law was first introduced in Singapore, a clear consensus on its underlying objectives remains elusive. In this article, we put forth a normative case for why Singapore's competition authorities should prioritise the promotion of economic welfare, as opposed to a more pluralistic approach that pursues competing objectives of equal standing. We argue that the normative bases for many of the rules in EU Competition Law are inconsistent with Singapore's Competition regime, and that such rules are not suitable for direct importation into Singapore. In particular, we illustrate how an overt reliance on EU case law as persuasive authority has resulted in a "formalistic" approach to Competition Law, where presumptions of law allow competition authorities to infer liability upon proof of certain conduct. Henceforth, we suggest that competition authorities in Singapore should exercise considerable caution in their application of EU law in individual cases.