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?

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.

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.

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.

A significant part of the copyright regime is premised on a delicate balance being struck between the rights of those who createworks for commercial exploitation and the interests of the audience of “users” for whom thoseworks were created to edify, engage and entertain. In viewof the increasing pressures from copyright owners seeking to fortify the nature and scope of their exclusive rights, what role do the courts play in restoring balance to the copyright system through the way they interpret the statutory defences to copyright infringement? This article will evaluate a recent attempt by the Canadian Supreme Court to widen the scope of the “fair dealing for private study or research” defence, which has traditionally been applied restrictively, in a way which suggests that “users” of copyrighted works may have a stronger claim to make copies of these works than was previously thought.

The common law jurisdictions of Australia and Singapore often adopt a conservative approach to recognising newproperty rights, particularly with respect to the human persona, but courts frequently take their cue from developments in the United Kingdom. This article revisits the landmark cases in these jurisdictions which, in declaring that a property right in the goodwill of a celebrity may be protected against unlicensed commercial appropriation, use language evocative of the right of publicity. It examines howthe courts have expanded the passing off action to prevent the unauthorised commercial use of the images of well-known personalities. Finally, by adopting a cultural studies analysis that investigates the semiotic nature of the celebrity sign and its influence on contemporary consumption, this article offers a different perspective to the debate on the protection of image rights.

This article examines the position in Singapore in relation to the common law category of implication of terms in law. It argues that the test of necessity was indeed laid down for this category by the House of Lords in Liverpool City Council and vigorously applied in subsequent House of Lords' decisions. Although a number of reasons may arguably be advanced to support the application of the test of necessity, Singapore courts do not appear to have applied it albeit alluded to in one case. Further, the criterion of reasonableness has also not been considered in all local cases, highlighting the inconsistent approach adopted. It is argued that, ultimately, policy considerations, fairness and justice might be the true principled test for this category in Singapore.