On 14 November 2022, Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”), Mr Daren Tang, delivered the keynote address at the Asian Pacific Copyright Association (“APCA”) Conference held at the Bukit Timah Campus of NUS Law. The conference was held in hybrid mode, attracting participants from over a dozen countries that spanned Austria to Australia. Co-hosted by the EW Barker Centre for Law & Business and the Centre for Technology, Robotics, AI & the Law (“TRAIL”), the theme of the conference was “Copyright in the Age of Disruption”. Over two dozen papers and presentations discussed how copyright law should address myriad disruptive phenomena such as the evolving use of artificial intelligence, the ascendancy of cultural appropriation concerns, the creation of the metaverse, new communication technologies, NFTs and fast fashion.

This article is an attempt to clarify one small corner of the puzzle: the relationship of the existing judicial systems in Singapore and Malaysia to prior predecessor courts on both sides of the causeway. More precisely, the article will trace the history of the Federal Court and the Singapore Court of Appeal in the period before, during and after merger to determine which decisions, at any given time, were properly binding on those two courts. An understanding of this history is, of course, crucial to an understanding of this aspect of stare decisis in Singapore and Malaysia. Indeed, it is the basic thesis of this article that a misapprehension of this historical development has led to the acceptance of an erroneous view of which decisions should now bind the Singapore Court of Appeal. Before reaching that point, however, the article must of necessity recanvass old ground, but it is hoped that the uncharted territory at the end of the journey will justify the labours expended in reaching it.

This article examines the position of the separation of powers doctrine within the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and in particular, the position of "the judicial power of the Federation" before and after the 1988 constitutional amendment to Article 121. Through textual analysis and a review of the extant case law, conclusions are offered regarding the manner in which the separation doctrine is incorporated within the Constitution and whether its principles may apply with implicit constitutional force, the efficacy of the 1988 amendment to effect substantive constitutional change, and whether "the judicial power of the Federation" remains exclusively vested in the courts established under Article 121. The Federal Court's decision in Public Prosecutor v. Kok Wah Kuan [2008] 1 M.L.J. 1 is discussed.

This article examines the enforceability of mediation clauses in Singapore. The various arguments against enforceability are examined and this article will argue that in light of current legal conditions in Singapore, a strong case can be made for the enforceability of mediation clauses. In addition the article will also explore some ancillary issues related to the enforceability of mediation clauses as well as recommend potential solutions.

Viewed as a remedy, the function of the constructive trust is not to render superfluous, but to reflect and enforce, the principles of the law of equity. Thus it is that there is no place in the law of this country for the notion of 'a constructive trust of a new model' which 'by whatever name it is described ... is ... Imposed by law whenever justice and good conscience requires it.' Under the law of this country - as, I venture to think, under the present law of England - proprietary rights fall to be governed by principles of law and not by some mix of judicial discretion, subjective views about 'which party ought to win' and 'the formless void of individual moral opinion.' Long before Lord Seldon's anachronism identifying the Chancellor's foot and the measure of Chancery relief, undefined notions of 'justice' and what was 'fair' had given way in the law of equity to the rule of ordered principle which is of the essence of any coherent system of rational law.