Rapid technological progress has shifted discussion of the possibility of "post-scarcity society" from science fiction novels and utopian manifestoes to the pages of our newspapers and now to our law reviews. Commentators imagine a world in which three-dimensional printing, advanced robotics, synthetic biology, and artificial intelligence will enable the low-cost at-home manufacture of nearly all commodities and provision of nearly all services. This lecture considers the implications of postscarcity society for law and specifically for intellectual property law. It focuses on the likely social role of intellectual property law in a post-scarcity society and on the ways in which intellectual property law will likely work to undermine the socially progressive promise of post-scarcity.

Maintenance and champerty were historically torts and crimes under English law, and the case can_x000D_ be made that they technically remain so under Singapore law. It would, however, be better to deal with third party litigation funding within the rubric of third party orders—at the interlocutory stage, for the third party to provide security for costs, and at the close of proceedings, for the third party funder to be liable for costs. This would jettison archaic and technical English case law relating to maintenance and champerty, and enable the Singapore courts to transparently facilitate access to justice whilst reigning in unwarranted forms of third party funding.

When a contract for the sale of real property is entered into, what happens if, between the time of contract and completion, an official announcement is published for the compulsory acquisition of that property? The traditional view has been based largely on one English High Court Case, Hillingdon Estates Co Ltd v Stonefield Estates Co Ltd, which held that compulsory acquisition in such circumstances did not affect the purchaser's obligation to complete the purchase. That view was rejected by the Singapore Court of appeal in Lim Kim Som v Sherifa Taibah bte Abdul Rahman, which declared such a contract frustrated. However, the Privy Council has now expressly approved the reasoning in Hillingdon's case in E Johnson (Barbados) Ltd v NSR Ltd. This paper analyses the three decisions and the developments in local case law after Lim Kim Sim's case, and suggests how the courts may proceed to deal with this question in future.

Cryptoassets, now in the mainstream with significant retail and institutional ownership, can be purchased on cryptoasset exchanges online from around the world. Correspondingly, disputes involving transnational cryptoasset transactions—which have already begun to crop up in the US—are likely to become increasingly common in Singapore given its status as a global financial hub. The problem, however, is that there is no global consensus on how to determine the applicable law for transnational transactions on cryptoasset exchanges. This lack of consensus engenders unnecessary uncertainty as to the disputing parties’ rights and obligations, which in turn has significant implications for issuers, potential investors, regulators, and even the entire financial system. Building on the shortcomings of existing conflict of laws solutions in other jurisdictions, this article proposes a conflict of laws solution to this problem for the Singapore courts. The solution entails (1) recognising that the problem should be dealt with using a choice-of-law approach, (2) creating a new category of issues, ‘market issues’, as which issues may be collectively characterised, and (3) choosing only the lex mercatus for issues characterised as market issues.

Remoteness in contract is an area which has faced much scrutiny across the common law world following The Achilleas. This article explores two contrasting approaches to the doctrine: a knowledge-based model premised on fairness, or respect for the defendant as an autonomous agent, and an agreement-centred approach based on the parties' implicit, rather than express intention. The status of the agreement-centred model in two jurisdictions—England and Singapore—shall then be explored. It shall be shown that the model has received a lukewarm, if not overtly hostile, reception which reflects its substantial theoretical and practical flaws.

Questioning the assumption that the United Kingdom's experience in Northern Ireland holds few lessons for contemporary counter-terrorism strategy, this article examines the complex relationship between terrorism, counter-terrorism policy, and minority alienation in the United Kingdom through the lens of the Northern Ireland conflict and the BelfastAgreement. The main argument in this article, and the ultimate lesson that emerges from the Northern Ireland conflict, is that an effective counterterrorism strategy must move beyond short-term, coercive strategies, toward social and political strategies that are designed to address minority alienation and facilitate the project of building a socially cohesive, multicultural society.

The article examines the provisions of the International Arbitration Act, which introduces the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration to Singapore. It considers various issues which arise under the Act and compares its provisions with the existing Arbitration Act.

Despite the well stated differences between the "real danger" and the "reasonable apprehension" of bias tests as employed by English and Australian courts respectively in determining when a judge should be disqualified by reason of bias, the method of implementation of the latter test over the last decade poses the question whether the differences are more apparent than real. Rather, it is the recent rejection by the High Court of Australia in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy of the "automatic disqualification" rule as set out by the House of Lords in R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate; Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) which more clearly marks the differences between the jurisdictions in this area of the law.

A special legal process for dealing with small claims was established in 1984. Under this process, a Small Claims Tribunal is conferred jurisdiction to hear and determine some disputes. The dispute settlement process adopted is simple and efficient. The tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence. It is also not bound by the strict technicalities of the law. This article examines the important issue of what cases the tribunal should be allowed to determine.