A short introduction to equity and trusts for aspiring law students, especially but not limited to those from Singapore.

Many states have obligations to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change under international agreements, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement of 12 December 2015. However, the host states'regulatory autonomy sharply conflicts with their obligations to protect private investors under International Investment Agreements, thereby giving rise to disputes between the parties. The launch of arbitration proceedings has the effect of inducing a regulatory chill on states to adopt and implement effective climate changed focused policies. We need to adopt a combination of strategies to limit the regulatory chill. At the same time, we must be realistic: it is impossible to eliminate all claims. This article focuses on measures that are adopted by the host states to comply with international obligations such as the Paris Agreement. It approaches the problem by considering practical strategies at two stages. First, in respect of existing International Investment Agreements (hereinafter "IIAs"), what possible reforms can be made to the current tribunal practice? We consider improving current tribunal practice by tackling three fundamental questions: can we treat disputes involving climate change-focused measures that are rooted in the States' international obligations as a special category; how to identify these measures; and what is the modern role of the tribunal in these disputes. Second, in respect of entering into new IIAs or renegotiating IIAs, how treaty drafting can be improved to safeguard the host states'regulatory space in respect of adopting effective measures to comply with their international obligations? That some of these proposed changes may be modest adjustments does not mean that they are not worthwhile improvements. They are important baby steps along the path towards value reorientation in the field of investor-state arbitration.

Abstract This chapter considers the choice of law rules for contractual obligations under Singapore law, which is closely similar to the equivalent choice of law rules under English common law. It starts with the process of identifying the proper law of the contract as the proper law of the contract plays a key role in most of the issues relating to choice of law for contractual obligations. Additionally, illegality and the operation of public policy influence the substantive obligations of parties under the contract. For example, a contract which is illegal under the proper law of the contract would not be enforced by the Singapore court. The chapter also tackles the choice of law rules for the formation, material validity and formal validity of a contract, and the capacity to contract. It explores the enactment of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods into the Singapore law that provides uniform rules for the international sales of goods.

While China strongly opposes the US practice of ‘long-arm jurisdiction’, it has decided to build its own legal system of extraterritoriality. This paradox reflects the crossroads at which China finds itself currently. Being a country weaker than the sole global superpower, it needs to stand firmly against the American ‘legal bullyism’ by invoking the shield of territorial sovereignty. Yet, as an emerging world power, it is in China’s interest to establish a legal system of extraterritoriality to safeguard its own national interests that extend globally. This article has two aims. First, it provides a comprehensive overview of the current model of Chinese extraterritoriality. Second, it proposes four key planks that should support the emerging Chinese system of extraterritoriality such that it will be both distinct from the US system as well as being practically achievable in light of China’s role in the global stage, national interests, and current capacity and conditions.

This article reviews the fiduciary duty to avoid actual conflicts. It argues that the duty to avoid actual conflicts adds limited substantive value to fiduciary accountability. Its present form has also contributed to widespread misconception of what should be expected of an unfortunate fiduciary who finds themselves in such a position. In this respect, we propose that many of the modern scenarios involving actual conflicts of duties or conflicts of duties and interests are better analysed not in terms of conflict avoidance but in terms of conflict management. Our analysis paves the way for thoughtfully working out what the fiduciaries' duties are in cases of actual conflict.

In recent years, Singapore has been actively rethinking and reworking ‘access to justice’, with a strong focus on creating new options for dispute resolution and promoting the awareness of these options. This chapter examines the judicial, regulatory and institutional support in Singapore for the twinning of mediation and arbitration as a form of multi-tier dispute resolution mechanism for commercial disputes. It is a hybrid approach that draws upon ‘the strengths of both adversarial and consensual dispute resolution’. In particular, this chapter critically analyses the SIMC-SIAC Arb-Med-Arb Protocol (the ‘AMA Protocol’) and interrogates how it contributes towards improving the arb-med-arb mechanism.

Abstract This paper examines why Singapore law has not followed English law in the area of beneficial ownership of family property. It points out that the landmark cases in the two jurisdictions are underpinned by different family paradigms.The English landmark cases are based on the unmarried cohabitants paradigm and the legal rules that have emerged from these cases are aimed at, whether successfully or not, ensuring a fair division of the family home upon the breakdown of these relationships. In contrast, the Singapore seminal judgments are underlaid by contests between children over their parents’ property which raised questions as to the parties’ true intentions and the legal techniques to determine that. In the main, this paper argues that the legal rules that emerge in a society are shaped by the conditions of that society: these rules are purpose-built to resolve the specific types of disputes that come through the judicial system, which are in turn moulded by the distinctive conditions of that society. The discussion also shows that whilst the courts in the two jurisdictions differ in the legal techniques which they apply to determine these disputes, they do not appear to differ greatly in their understanding of human interactions and complex family relationships.

This note discusses the High Court of Australia decision of Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Bank Group Limited on the rule against penalty clauses and situates its importance in light of the UK Supreme Court decision of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi and Beavis v ParkingEye Ltd . It compares the analytical frameworks laid down in the two cases and points out some unresolved issues in this area of law even following these cases.

This book is a collection of essays from scholars at Singapore Management University School of Law analysing the challenges and implications of COVID-19 from the perspective of different areas of law, including private law, corporate law, insolvency law, data protection, financial laws, public law, privacy law, commercial law, constitutional law, law and technology, and dispute resolution. It also analyses how the COVID-19 pandemic will affect the judicial system, the study of law, and the future of the legal profession. Beyond considerations of the pandemic's influence on law and legal service delivery the authors consider how law can help facilitate the orderly transition to a sustainable future – the new normal.