During his long and distinguished career as a Jude of the Singapore Supreme Court, the Honourable Mr. Justice Victor Winslow handed down numerous important decisions in the field of commercial law. One of them - Overseas Union Bank Ltd. V Chua - is a leading case on the tender of certificates of inspection under documentary credits. The learned Judge's deep interest in the subject of letters of credit and of negotiable instruments renders this article - based on a paper delivered to the Wellington District Law Society in July 1977 - a suitable contribution to a publication dedicated to him on the occasion of his retirement.

The legislative framework on dispositions of common property in the BMSMA is not entirely clear on the powers of a management corporation to permanently discard common property. This presents practical difficulties especially where it is inappropriate to undertake renewal or replacement of the same given the circumstances. Section 29(1)(d) of the BMSMA does not appear to confer such a power of disposal. This can be seen from the Hansard pertaining to the amendments made to this provision. Given the uncertainty engendered by the amendments themselves, the implications arising from case law and the relevant legislative provisions are considered, including the New SouthWales' experience on the matter.

Two recent English decisions have highlighted the issue of causation in the context of breach of fiduciary duty. In both cases, the defendant implicitly argued that whether the profits or conflicts rule is breached, the causation standard is the same. This article suggests that the causation standards applicable for the profits and conflicts rules are different. When equitable compensation is sought for loss due to breach of the conflicts rule, there must be a causal connection between the conflict and the loss. But there is no special causation standard applicable when an account of profits is sought following a breach of the profits rule. Any unauthorised profit made within the scope of the relationship attracting fiduciary duties must be accounted for. These standards are appropriate in the context of the rules breached, because they best achieve approximation of loyal performance of the duties owed.

The question of how the criminal law should treat negligently caused harm has always been practically and ethically problematic. While a wealth of authority exists for criminal negligence on the road, negligence in other contexts, particularly in the medical sphere, has rarely reached the criminal courts. This article explores the different ways in which negligence can be criminalised and argues that the law should not be held hostage by the peculiarities of road traffic negligence, and that the matter should be considered afresh for medical negligence. The conceptually difficult role of the Coroner in making pronouncements on criminal liability where the injury is fatal is also examined.

This article offers a sketch of two aspects of a liberal theory of the criminal trial. It does so by_x000D_ examining the criminal court first as an institution of the liberal state and second as a liberal institution of the state. Part II proposes a conception of the adversarial trial primarily as a process of holding the executive to account on its request for conviction and punishment. In some jurisdictions, the perceived need for a strong system of checks and balances has led to an expansion of the judicial role to include oversight of the executive in its exercise of investigatory powers. This expansion is resisted in other jurisdictions where a more restrictive view is taken of the court's political responsibility. Part III considers howliberal principles are reflected in thecommonlawform of criminal proceedings; it examines the importance of a 'fair trial' or 'due process'; and, it proposes an understanding of the trial not merely as a means of bringing criminals to justice but, more importantly, as a matter of doing justice to the accused.