Proximity is a necessary condition to found a duty of care in negligence, In this article, I make three arguments. First, I argue that the cases show that proximity as currently defined (physical, causal and circumstantial closeness between the plaintiff and defendant) is an unsatisfactory duty-determining device. Proximity so defined does not explain most of the Singapore duty cases and is unsatisfactory in dealing with psychiatric harm cases. Next, I explore why this is so. It turns out that the current definition is unsatisfactory because it is non-binary, non-basic and fails to accommodate both the personal characteristics of the parties and residual legal principles. Lastly, I propose a new proximity rule and guidelines in implementing this rule. The new proximity rule is: proximity is present if and only if it is reasonable to expect the defendant to take account of the plaintiff's interest in not suffering the damage that he suffered.

Digital technology, and particularly the Internet, is reducing the cost of publishing works, but has also made the unauthorised copying and distributing of works virtually costless. Despite the level of harmonisation of copyright laws worldwide, achieved through the Berne Convention, the TRIPs Agreement and WIPO Copyright Treaty, such copyright infringements on the Internet still give rise to a number of relevant conflict of laws issues. This article focuses on the analysis of the applicable law rules provided under the Berne Convention in relation to economic and moral rights in the light of the various technical scenarios of copyright infringement in cyberspace. From this perspective, it also attempts to assess if and to what extent it is possible to attribute a new meaning to too often datable applicable law principles.

It will not be long before the Singapore Court of Appeal will have to confront the question it left_x000D_ open in Gunapathy and decide whether it should extend the Bolam principle to negligent advice cases as the House of Lords has done, or whether it should follow the more rigorous standard applied in other jurisdictions such as Canada and Australia. Rather than focus on the narrow and intractable debate about the philosophical values underlying both approaches (patient autonomy versus medical paternalism), this article draws on current behavioural and psychological studies to examine which approach would truly assist a patient in arriving at a rational and informed choice. It is argued that neither model currently employed is satisfactory because they fail to take into account the fact that the patient, as a layperson, and the physician, as an expert, perceive risk differently. Accordingly, it is proposed that the doctrine of informed consent should be structured to emphasize the constitutive nature of risk communication in order to bridge this difference.

As a trustee of a private trust, the range of investment options available today must seem particularly daunting, especially since beneficiaries themselves have greater access to financial information and are consequently better informed. Trustees may be tempted to simply buy into a unit trust. Some things however, stand in the way. First, a trustee may be constrained to invest only in authorised unit trusts by Section 7 and the First Schedule of the Trustee's Act. Even if not, the trustee must still be concerned whether an investment in such funds satisfies the duties of care and skill required of trustees. What does it mean to purchase a unit trust? In particular, is the regulation of such funds sound, and are there problems with delegating the private trustees' investment decision to the trustee or manager of a unit trust?

This article looks at three aspects involving a management corporation in a strata development. It is argued that the principle laid down in the New SouthWales cases that a management corporation holds the common property as trustee for the unit owners has no application in the Singapore context. In light of the various difficulties faced by a management corporation in pursuing actions in contract and tort for unit owners in respect of the common property, legislative intervention to confer on the management corporation a cause of action in its own right is justified. Finally, greater clarity on what amounts to structural defects in a strata development would be welcomed as it would greatly assist a management corporation in discharging its duty in this respect.

The nature of the Australian government's proposed legislative response to terrorism is discussed in this article. The authors highlight the stifling impact of the proposed legislation on rights of peaceful protest and civil liberties in Australia. The proposed legislation creates a wide range of new offences with draconian penalties, despite the adequacy of existing criminal law. It also raises a number of significant constitutional issues.