This paper makes a medium-term forecast of the future of banking and financial law and lawyers internationally. It expresses the view that the law is essential to societies and that the basic purpose of the law is survival. It explains the rationale of banks as intermediaries for credit, discusses the important role of banking and financial law in the hierarchy of law, shows that there has been a very rapid increase in the size of the law, commencing from 1830 onwards, offers some reasons for the growth of the law and legal risk, such as globalisation and the intensification of regulatory regimes, proposes that there will be a strong demand medium-term for banking and financial lawyers of outstanding competence who can put the world together legally, explains the families of law, discusses various classes of legal risk and explains the high responsibilities undertaken by lawyers_x000D_ in their role in societies.

The complex relationship between negligence and autonomy is of increasing practical and theoretical interest, as is shown by recent cases such as Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, Shaw v Kovac [2017] EWCA Civ 1028 and ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 20. My discussion of this relationship divides into three parts. In the first part, I make some general observations about the relationship between negligence law and autonomy. In the second part, I argue that interference with autonomy per se should not be recognised as a form of damage that grounds a negligence claim, although I acknowledge that it may be useful for the law to recognise specific forms of autonomy loss as damage in this sense. And in the third and final part, I consider the uneasy relationship between negligence doctrine and patient autonomy in the law of liability for medical non-disclosure, and argue that as a result of recent developments, this may no longer be properly described as liability for negligence.

This paper analyzes the role of multiculturalism in the exercise of administrative discretion. Whether the setting is national security or social welfare eligibility, standards of justice rise or fall on the judgments of individual "front-line" decision-makers. Such decision-makers are the human face of the state. Against this contextual backdrop, this paper addresses a series of critical questions, including: To what extent is the exercise of discretion specifically, and the character of the administrative state more generally, determined by culture and identity? Will decision-makers in a representative public service treat members of their own communities differently than members of other communities? Administrative culture and culture of the society at large are deeply entangled in the exercise of discretion. The reasons for discretionary decisions, in other words, must grapple with and not sidestep the values, beliefs and administrative structures which underlie them. This approach is elaborated in the Canadian context, with particular emphasis on the policy of the federal government to achieve a multicultural public service and the development of impartiality and fairness standards in Canadian administrative law.

Over the years, there have been many debates on what the Rule of Law actually means, and what it should include. Whether the Rule of Law should be "thick" or "thin". The differences between "Rule of Law" and "Rule by Law".

Unlike rights in personam, which are held against a limited number of people (paradigmatically, one), rights in rem are held against everyone else in the world. Among other things, “everyone” denotes a dynamic collection of persons. However, in Wesley Hohfeld’s analysis of rights, every right is a relation between exactly two people. For Hohfeld, a right in rem must therefore be analysed as an aggregate of rights, where each relation in the aggregate features the right-holder at one pole and one other person in the world at the other. Even for aficionados, this is one of the oddest aspects of Hohfeld’s account — which he crowns with a curious label to boot, “multital” right — and critics have had a field day with it. For example, Penner (2020) criticises Hohfeld’s multital analysis on the grounds that its information costs are too high. In this paper, I show how Hohfeld’s treatment of rights in rem can be amended to avoid Penner’s critique.

This article considers three possible directions for the development of equitable accessorial and recipient liability in Singapore. These are suggested by leading cases in Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia concerning recipient liability. The first direction is closest to the status quo. It involves a contextual inquiry into dishonesty or unconscionability and exceptionally allows constructive notice to suffice for recipient liability. The second possibility is to treat the two forms of liability as involving the same participatory liability for breach of trust or fiduciary duty. The third possible direction is to maintain a distinction between the two forms of liability and to minimise the operation of recipient liability where there is a concurrent common lawclaim. The final part of the article considers whether it is possible to achieve autochthony in this area of law, given the various non-legal considerations_x000D_ that may influence the direction taken.

Asian countries increasingly see the need for uniform or harmonised law at least in commercial matters, but the adoption of international uniform laws has nonetheless often been slow in many parts of Asia. How should Asia harmonise its laws? Should there be an Asian harmonisation or should Asian nations simply adopt internationally negotiated uniform law? Do the internationally negotiated laws sufficiently take into account the legal traditions of Asia or are they simply compromises between the main Western legal traditions (civil and common law)? Using the CISG as an example, the author readily concedes that it does not take into account non-Western legal traditions but argues that Asian nations should nonetheless adopt such international instruments. First, for better or for worse, either Asian Western civil law or Western common law is the formal law in force in commercial matters in most Asian countries and therefore any harmonisations of these formals laws would be useful in Asia. Furthermore, the adoption of these formal international instruments in Asia would allow Asians to (more informally) influence their interpretation and make sure that they are applied taking into account Asian experiences and values.

The tort of breach of statutory duty is currently in a somewhat precarious state. In England, the courts in recent years have shown a tendency to refuse claims for breach of statutory duty in almost all cases other than those involving issues of industrial safety. In Singapore, decisions have been reached in which it is doubtful whether the tort has been considered or applied at all. _x000D_ This article discusses the traditional approaches to the tort of breach of statutory duty, considers its present (and arguably unsatisfactory) position in the law, and examines the prospects for its future as a tort of diminished status and limited application.