The article examines the problems arising from the current approach relating to the stay of proceedings commenced in breach of exclusive jurisdiction arrangements. Both Singapore and English cases are referred to. A new approach is proposed in response to these problems.

This article describes and analyses the two main pieces of legislation with which South Africa has responded to the phenomena of organised crime and terrorism, namely, the Prevention of Organised Crime Act and the draft Anti-Terrorism Bill. It identifies the main features of each and focuses on the elements which may be unconstitutional. It argues that the rights infringements in the Prevention of Organised Crime Act might, on the whole, be accepted as justifiable by the courts, but that those in the Anti-Terrorism Bill, in its current form, will probably not pass constitutional muster. A closing section compares the general severity of the anti terrorism and anti-organised crime measures with the measures required by the international regime, and concludes that they are substantially similar. In light of the fact that the legislature and executive may possibly be obliged to adopt the extreme approach taken in the legislation, the article concludes with a brief examination of the resulting conflicts between international and domestic law and between the different branches of government.

The law on penalty clauses has, until recently, remained largely unchanged, with only minor developments over the years. However, there have been significant developments in both Australia and England and Wales in recent times. Singapore's position on the penalty rule has remained unchanged despite these developments. While some High Court authorities in Singapore have suggested that they are inclined towards adopting the developments seen in England and Wales, such a step should only be taken after careful consideration of the implications of these developments which are explored in this article. This article takes the opportunity to examine and evaluate the law on penalty clauses in various jurisdictions and discusses the key issues surrounding the law on penalty clauses, and the possible legislative reforms for Singapore.

This article explores the prospects if using probation as a dispositionary device to alleviate the conflicts that individuals encounter due to poor adaptation to institutional circumscriptions and societal norms. An effort is made in this article to provide a conceptual framework that could be used for implementing the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act of Singapore and other statutes that provide for supervision by probation officers. It is also indicated in this article that if probation is to be an effective non-custodial disposition in the future, it will have to fulfil goals that extend beyond the objectives traditionally ascribed to custodial and non-custodial sanctions.

The courts have long supported the enforcement of compromise agreements, including settlements arrived at in the course of mediation. However, the recent trend in many countries, including Singapore, of enacting statutory provisions for the enforcement of mediated agreements suggests that the existing legal framework may be inadequate to support the mediation process. This paper examines the current principles used by the courts in determining the enforcement of mediated settlements, assessing them in light of the underlying values of mediation and contract law. This is followed by a brief analysis of how mediation confidentiality has been impacted by the current legal framework. In examining the preferred way forward, the paper also surveys various ways of buttressing the legal framework, and puts forward a few recommendations.

It is often necessary for a company to reach a compromise with its creditors, and where necessary, third parties. A useful tool for facilitating such a compromise is the scheme of arrangement, a court-controlled procedure for restructuring the relationship between the company and its members or creditors. The scheme provisions are, however, silent on whether a third-party release may be incorporated into a scheme. Since the mid 2000s, the Australian and UK courts have developed two different tests, namely the nexus test and the necessity test, to fill this statutory gap. This paper discusses policy concerns, if any, that the alternative tests have given cause to, and if the answer is ‘yes’, how these concerns should be addressed. The paper concludes that the necessity test does, and the nexus test does not, give cause for concern and that the latter should be adopted for determining scheme jurisdiction in all cases.