This article outlines the development of the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration. It also examines the measures necessary to foster a conducive environment for arbitration and the steps which have been taken in Malaysia towards this end.

This article argues that judicial control of the prorogation power in Singapore should be confined to enforcing the Constitutional provisions that directly or indirectly regulate the power - the most important being the 6-month limit on the interval between sessions of Parliament. Beyond the Constitutional provisions, the Constitutional principle engaged in an exercise of the prorogation power is responsible government, which is turned on its head when Parliament is prorogued on the advice of a Prime Minister who does not command its confidence. Responsible government is secured not by legal controls but by political controls, ie the reserve power of the President to dismiss a Prime Minister who does not command confidence. This power can be operated to avoid, or to reverse, a prorogation advised by a Prime Minister who does not command the confidence of Parliament. There is no therefore need for judicial control of prorogation beyond enforcing the relevant Constitutional provisions.

This report highlights some of the more important legal developments in Brunei Darussalam covering the period between January 1991 to December 1992. The topics covered in this report include Emergency Orders and case law.

In recent decades, a number of fantastically successful, mainly American, MNEs - led and epitomised by the "Four Horsemen", Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google, but also extending beyond the tech sector - have earned huge profits, while paying very low global taxes, through their use of IP. Since intellectual property, in contrast to tangible property, generally lacks a clear location, it empowers corporate tax avoidance at the expense of both the production countries where the MNEs' high-value owner-employees live, and the market countries where their customers live. This two-part article assesses the challenges posed for countries' international tax systems by the rise of mobile intellectual property, including but not limited to the case where it is embodied in a digital platform. Part One in this issue assesses the challenges posed for the traditional income tax concept of source, and for the OECD's proposed focus on the site of "value creation". Part Two in the next issue will focus on proposals to shift taxing rights towards market jurisdictions that may enjoy location-specific rents with regard to the MNEs' access to their consumers, including via the use of DSTs.

Modern conceptions of dramatic entertainment have expanded to include diverse and previously inconceivable forms. The elements of apparent spontaneity in popular television shows like MasterChef, The Amazing Race and The Voice appear to be at odds with the traditional requirements of a predetermined script—which is commonly understood to be necessary for copyright protection of a "dramatic work". Other forms of performances such as improvisation theatre, animal acts, fireworks and synchronised drones only add to a cacophonous collection that do not fit into our current state of copyright law that demands categorical recognition of works. This article explores, through a comparative analysis of developments in a number of Commonwealth common law jurisdictions, what may and should qualify as a dramatic work in Singapore in the 21st century.

In Singapore conflict of laws, the tainting doctrine applies where a contractual claim governed by Singapore law is not itself unenforceable for illegality or public policy, but is sufficiently connected to a transaction which is so unenforceable. However, the mechanism of this doctrine—as articulated in the English Court of Appeal decision of Euro-Diam Ltd v Bathurst Ltd—is today uncertain due to, inter alia, its use of domestic illegality principles which no longer apply. This paper suggests two areas of clarification. First, it explores whether the doctrine should be seen an application of the proper law of the contract or the law of the forum. Second, it introduces a possible approach as informed by the test in tainting by domestic illegality, which may be applied where the contract sought to be enforced is governed by Singapore law.

If a contracting party cannot pay in US dollars, can they pay the equivalent in Euros? Set against the backdrop of force majeure, the conclusion reached by the UK Supreme Court in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV was, perhaps surprisingly, no. The court held that reasonable endeavours provisos in force majeure clauses can never require a party to accept non-contractual performance (ie, performance on different terms from the contract). This comment has two aims. First, it explains why the holding should be reconsidered, and in so doing sets out a preferable approach to interpreting reasonable endeavours provisos in force majeure clauses. Second, it makes suggestions on the approach to interpreting force majeure clauses more generally. In this regard, references and observations will also be made on the position in Singapore.

In Hui Chun Ping v Hui Kau Mo (2024) 27 HKCFAR 634, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal considered whether an agent who acquired a secret profit in breach of fiduciary duty could raise a limitation defence. Lord Hoffmann NPJ decided that the claim against the agent did not fall within s 20(1)(b) of the Limitation Ordinance and was subject to a limitation period. This Note makes two comments on his reasoning. First, it argues that Lord Hoffmann’s recourse to the historical roots of the limitation statute should be commended, even if his articulation of it was not without its shortcomings. Second, it critiques Lord Hoffmann’s unsatisfactorily equivocal answer to whether the limitation period arose by analogy or directly under s 20(2) of the Limitation Ordinance. It suggests that it would have been desirable for him to clarify that the limitation period in Hui arose by analogy only.

On 8 February 2025, the Singapore Parliament enacted the Workplace Fairness Act 2025, which is the first legal framework against workplace discrimination in Singapore. This comment builds on existing scholarship by focusing on the social implications that might result from three legal characteristics of the WFA: (a) the lack of provisions against conduct that would amount to indirect discrimination in other jurisdictions; (b) that sexual orientation and gender identity are not listed as protected characteristics; and (c) the explicit legalisation of discrimination against relatives and associates. Overall, I argue that while the WFA is a valuable addition to the employment law regime in Singapore, the law needs to be more sensitive to the socio-political consequences that could result from its legal operation.

It is an oft-repeated truism that damages are compensatory. Errant doctrines which recognise the possibility of monetary recovery in excess of loss, such as punitive damages, are marginalised as anomalies. Others, such as negotiating damages, are uncomfortably shoehorned into the Procrustean bed of compensation. Cost-of-cure damages have likewise become a casualty of the law’s apparent fixation on compensation. Despite suggestions to the contrary, these damages are often treated as simply one measure of loss. That approach has thrown up difficult questions about the dual roles of the claimant’s intention to effect cure and the reasonableness of curing. In Terrenus Energy SL2 Pre Ltd v Attika Interior + MEP Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(A) 4, the Appellate Division of the High Court was called on to revisit these questions, which had previously been confronted in JSD Corporation Pte Ltd v Tri-Line Express Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 227.