It has been a decade since the Singapore Court of Appeal in AJU v AJT adopted a minimal review approach for an arbitral tribunal’s findings, even for findings that have an impact on a public policy issue such as corruption. This paper traces the jurisprudence in this area: from the authorities leading up to AJU v AJT, through to the Privy Council’s decision in Betamax which cited AJU v AJT. Through this tracing exercise, this paper seeks to clarify the precise ambit of the minimal review approach under AJU v AJT, and argues that the minimal review approach continues to strike the correct balance between the competing public policy concerns of finality in arbitration and the countervailing public policy concerns that find expression in the public policy ground of challenge against arbitral awards.

This article discusses the changes made to Singapore's land and trust law by the Application of English Law Act 1993. The focus is on the effects of the "repeal" of the Second Charter of Justice, which imported English common law and pre-1826 English statutes into Singapore. The first part of the article discusses the provisions of the new Act, which replace the pre-1826 English statutory provisions. The second part discusses cases where English statutory provisions have not been replaced by new local legislation.

The article deals with the area of constructive trusts which does not involve equitable interests commonly associated with the institution of trustee-beneficiary. It is suggested that the term constructive trusteeship, which is sometimes used to describe this area of the law, is a misnomer, and that the concern is with no more than a personal liability in equity. The view taken, in the light of recent cases, is that such liability only arises where there has been some form of unconscionability on the part of the wrongdoer. Liability is not strict nor does constructive notice suffice.

Recent decisions of the Family Court of Australian reflect concern over the adversarial nature of the legal process. The processes and procedures of the judicial system militate against a detailed examination of the issues and rights of the parties in dispute. The limitations of the family law framework are particularly demonstrated in disputes over the custody of children where the Court has tended to neglect the rights and interests of the primary carer. An alternative "unified family court" framework will be examined in which the Court pursues a more active and interventionist approach in the determination of family law disputes.

This article outlines the problems attendant on the conclusion of contracts intended to be performed by a company, though entered into by a promoter or interested party before the company's formation. Such pre-incorporation contracts, widely used as a vehicle for obliging co-contractants, are nonetheless not without difficulties, notably in cases where liability for performance or non-performance is at issue. It is the purpose of this article to take a comparative view of how these questions have been dealt with in a number of Commonwealth countries, including the United Kingdom, as well as Europe, where the company law harmonisation initiative has attempted to create a unique rule to apply to both common law and civil law jurisdictions.

Just as in the Indian Penal Code, the intoxication provisions contained in ss. 85 and 86 of the_x000D_ Singaporean and Malaysian Penal Codes are described as 'General Exceptions', suggesting that they operate as affirmative (or 'supervening') substantive-law defences to criminal liability. It is argued in this article, however, that the primary function of these provisions is not to create a distinct legal defence. Rather, it is to enable the courts to convict persons who do not satisfy the mens rea requirements of a crime, when their lack of mens rea is because of intoxication. The sections permit us to treat such defendants as having mens rea when in fact they do not. As such, the provisions are mainly inculpatory, not exculpatory. They assist the prosecution, not the defendant. This claim will be defended both in principle and in terms of statutory interpretation. This article also discusses certain exceptions, where intoxication does operate as a true supervening defence.