This article examines the increasing use of judicial review under administrative law by corporate entities in Singapore to protect or even to assert strategic business interests. When used effectively, commercial judicial review can be a powerful tool. It considers why such a trend has arisen and the implications for public law litigation. The backdrop of the Attorney-General (Additional Functions) Act is also considered. The article argues that judicial review is increasingly an important consideration for companies seeking to protect their interests against what they regard as unfair or unlawful government or regulatory actions. It suggests that private sector entities in embracing public law litigation would also do well to also support administrative law values such as legality, fairness, and accountability.

The writer argues that tracing claims, whether at law or equity, are restitutionary in nature, and a restitutionary framework can be used to rationalize this area of the law. In consequence, the threshold for tracing in equity and some of the received learning on common law tracing require re-examination, and the divergent outcomes at law and equity after a successful tracing exercise should be rationalized. In addition, the restitutionary liability of the agent who receives a bribe and the recipient who claims from such an agent is explicable on tracing principles.

The practice of the local courts in relation to provocation as a partial defence to murder has hitherto been to follow the developments of the defence in English law. This article seeks to examine some of the recent developments from England and other parts of the Commonwealth, assess the current state of our law in Singapore, and discuss whether these developments ought to be followed locally.

The introduction of the limited liability partnership (LLP) into UK law has taken place against the backdrop of two fundamental law reform projects-one on company law which is currently being considered by the Government and one on partnerships and limited partnerships which is being conducted by the Law Commissions of England and Wales and Scotland-but oddly without reference to or by either. This article considers the unusual gestation process and resulting legal regulation and structure of the LLP against this background of law reform. It also considers whether the LLP will be used and/or is useable-in particular as a vehicle for obtaining immunity for members of the professions from direct or vicarious liability for negligent misstatements; whether the internal structure will be suitable for small businesses; and whether an appropriate creditor/member balance has been achieved. The article then considers some aspects of partnership law reform generally, welcoming the proposals for legal personality, continuity of association and simplification of the definition of a partnership. It suggests revisions to the proposals on contemplated partnerships, the effects of a repudiatory breach on a partnership agreement and the interaction of potentially conflicting fiduciary duties if legal personality is introduced. Finally it suggests a new approach to the law on the liability of innocent partners for the accessory liability of one partner incurred in connection with the firm's activities.

This article explores how defamation jurisprudence in Singapore has elevated the political public figure to an exalted position, virtually according the reputation of these honourable men, or junzi, heightened protection over the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. It takes the position that there are sufficient bases for the Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. privilege (the Reynolds privilege) to be adopted under Singapore common law, independent of any reliance on art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It further argues that courts in Singapore ought to draw on relevant English and Australian jurisprudence, and consider a broader qualified privilege defence in defamation suits involving political public figures. The author concludes that the common law of qualified privilege in Singapore should be reviewed to take into account a multi-factorial approach when examining whether greater leeway may be accorded to citizen comments on public officials and public policy that are relevant to good government and good governance.

English Contract Law has long struggled to understand the effect of a fundamental common mistake in contract formation. Bell v. Lever Brothers Ltd. [1932] A.C. 161 recognises that a common mistake which totally undermines a contract renders it void. Solle v. Butcher [1950] 1 K.B. 671 recognises a doctrine of 'mistake in equity' under which a serious common mistake in contract formation falling short of totally undermining the contract could give an adversely affected party the right to rescind the contract. This article accepts that the enormous difficulty in differentiating these two kinds of mistake justifies the insistence by the Court of Appeal in The Great Peace [2003] Q.B. 679 that there can be only one doctrine of common mistake. However, the article proceeds to argue that where the risk of the commonly mistaken matter is not allocated by the contract itself a better doctrine would be that the contract is voidable.

In the recent decision of Citicorp Investment Bank (Singapore) v Wee Ah Kee, our Court of Appeal examined the parol evidence rule. In interpreting the agreement in question, the court appears to have taken a restrictive view of the use of extrinsic evidence. This article explains how courts use extrinsic evidence to interpret instruments, and analyses the parol evidence provisions on interpretation in the Evidence Act

This article examines the definition and treatment of tax losses in the computation of income. In particular, it addresses the scope of two anti-avoidance provisions aimed at counter-acting schemes that exploit accumulated tax losses in companies. Among other things, it highlights the need for legislative reform to deal with the ineffectiveness and flaws in these provisions.

The articulation of a single two-stage test by the Singapore Court of Appeal to determine the imposition of a duty of care in negligence for all types of damage claimed and for all factual scenarios is an admirable effort to bring doctrinal clarity to the neighbourhood principle. However, the notion of proximity which forms the cornerstone of the Spandeck test can benefit from a more methodical examination of a set of factual factors relevant to the relationship between the parties to the dispute. This article argues that the salient features approach of the High Court of Australia may be modified and adapted to assist Singapore courts in their analysis of "proximity" under the Spandeck formulation, and would be of significant practical benefit to judges and lawyers in their appraisement of the factual matrix.