Lawlink 2019 Contents Contents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
This Paper Has Been Published in the Journal of Business Law and The
Supreme Court of Singapore, 1 Supreme Court Lane, Singapore 178879, t: (65)-6332-1020 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ This paper has been published in the Journal of Business Law and the Supreme Court Library Queensland gratefully acknowledges the permission of the editor, Professor Robert Merkin, to reprint it in the Yearbook. A version of this essay was delivered at the Current Legal Issues Seminar in the Banco Court on 12 September 2013. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Ms Andrea Gan and Mr Jonathan Yap, Justices’ Law Clerks, Supreme Court of Singapore, as well as to Asst Prof Goh Yihan of the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, for their helpful comments and suggestions. I would also like to dedicate this essay to all the participants who displayed an extraordinary (and, I might add, rare) degree of enthusiasm and (above all) friendship. All errors remain mine alone. Further, all views expressed in this essay are personal views only and do not reflect the views of the Supreme Court of Singapore. Andrew Phang Our Vision: Excellence in judicial education and research. Our Mission: To provide and inspire continuing judicial learning and research to enhance the competency and professionalism of judges. The Challenge of Principled Gap-Filling — A Study of Implied Terms in a Comparative Context by The Honourable Justice Andrew Phang Boon Leong* There has been a veritable wealth of literature on implied terms — ranging from doctoral theses1 to book chapters,2 articles3 and (more recently) a book.4 What accounts for this interest? Perhaps the simplest explanation is that it is an extremely important topic with at least two important functions — one substantive, the other theoretical. -
2018 ANNUAL MEETING from Imitation to Innovation
2018 ANNUAL MEETING From Imitation to Innovation NOVEMBER 10 – 12, 2018 DOHA, QATAR HOSTED BY INDEX WELCOME ………………………………………………………………………… 3 AGENDA …………………………………………………………………………... 4 GROUP BREAKOUTS …………………………………………………………… 10 GOVERNING BOARD …………………………………………………………… 13 DOCTRINAL STUDY GROUPS ………………………………………………… 14 UNIVERSITIES ATTENDING …………………………………………………… 15 BOARD OF GOVERNORS ATTENDEES ……………………………………... 17 QATAR UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF LAW ATTENDEES …………………. 21 JUDICIAL ATTENDEES …………………………………………………………. 25 ATTENDEES ……………………………………………………………………… 29 SECRETARIAT …………………………………………………………………… 58 SINGAPORE DECLARATION ………………………………………………….. 59 MADRID PROTOCOL ……………………………………………………………. 61 JUDICIAL STANDARDS OF A LEGAL EDUCATION ……………………….. 62 SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT ………………………………………………… 63 EVALUATION, ASSISTANCE, AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ……….. 66 2 WELCOME On behalf of all the members of the International Association of Law Schools Board of Governors, we want to welcome each and every one of you to our 2018 Annual Meeting. This is our eleventh annual meeting where over 115 law teachers from more than 30 countries have gathered together to discuss and formulate new strategies to improve legal education globally. Almost half of our participants are senior law school leaders (deans, vice deans and associate deans). We warmly welcome all the familiar faces from these many years – welcome and thank you for your continued engagement in advancing the cause of improving legal education globally. For those who are new, a special warm welcome from our community. Please meet your colleagues from around the world. We look forward to working with you in this challenging and engaging effort. The IALS is a non-political, non-profit learned society of more than 160 law schools and departments from over 55 countries representing more than 7,500 law faculty members. One of our primary missions is the improvement of law schools and conditions of legal education throughout the world by learning from each other. -
(Dawn Tan 11 Mar 10) Final
About Dawn Dawn graduated with First Class Honours from the National University of Singapore Law School in 1997. In 2002 she took a Master of Laws degree from the Harvard Law School where she again achieved academic distinction. Dawn completed her pupilage under Mr Michael Hwang, S.C. at Allen & Gledhill (now Allen & Gledhill LLP) and was admitted as an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore in May 1998. Dawn is also admitted as a Solicitor in England and Dawn Tan Ly-Ru Wales and an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law of the State of New York. Between 1998 and 1999, Dawn was a Justices’ Law Clerk in the Chambers of the former Chief Justice, Mr Yong Pung How. She then served as an Assistant Registrar at the Supreme Court Contact Details Registry and concurrently took up teaching appointments at the National University of Singapore Law School and the then T: 656.225.3819 Department of Law of the Singapore Management University. F: 656.224.1891 Between 2004 and 2006, Dawn was Deputy Director Trade at the Ministry of Trade and Industry where she was involved in the E: [email protected] formulation and implementation of Singapore’s foreign trade policy. She negotiated the Trade in Goods, Rules of Origin and Qualifications Trade Remedies Chapters of Singapore’s Free Trade Agreements with India, Panama, Chile, New Zealand and Brunei (known as LL.B. (Hons), National University of the “Pacific 4”), Kuwait and Pakistan. She also advised on the Singapore (1997) legality of actions taken by other countries, such as anti-dumping LL.M., Harvard Law School (2002) measures, against Singapore companies. -
The Development of Singapore Law: a Bicentennial Retrospective1
(2020) 32 SAcLJ 804 (Published on e-First 8 May 2020) THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGAPORE LAW: A BICENTENNIAL RETROSPECTIVE1 The present article reviews (in broad brushstrokes) the status of Singapore law during its bicentennial year. It is not only about origins but also about growth – in particular, the autochthonous or indigenous growth of the Singapore legal system (particularly since the independence of Singapore as a nation state on 9 August 1965). The analysis of this growth is divided into quantitative as well as qualitative parts. In particular, the former constitutes an empirical analysis which attempts – for the very first time − to tell the development of Singapore law through numbers, building on emerging techniques in data visualisation and empirical legal studies. Andrew PHANG Judge of Appeal, Supreme Court of Singapore. GOH Yihan Professor of Law, School of Law, Singapore Management University. Jerrold SOH Assistant Professor of Law, School of Law, Singapore Management University; Co-Founder, Lex Quanta. I. Introduction 1 The present article, which reviews (in broad brushstrokes) the status of Singapore law during its bicentennial year since the founding of Singapore by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819, is of particular significance as English law constitutes the foundation of Singapore law. The role of Raffles and his successors, therefore, could not have been more directly 1 All views expressed in the present article are personal views only and do not reflect in any way the views of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the Singapore Management University or Lex Quanta. Although this article ought, ideally, to have been published last year, the immense amount of case law that had to be analysed has led to a slight delay. -
[Webinar] SAL Annual Review Series 2021 Singapore Cases in 2020
[Webinar] SAL Annual Review Series 2021 Singapore Cases in 2020 In conjunction with the Singapore Academy of Law's Annual Review of Singapore cases 2020, this series of webinars will evaluate the decisions of the Singapore Courts in 2020 as well as highlight the developments in the principal areas of the law that have taken place since. L I FTED by Legal Practitioner Specialisms Webinar In-House Counsel Specialisms Legal Support Specialisms SAL Annual Review Series 2021 Annual Review of 2020 Cases on: Wed, 23 Jun Land Law Register here 1.5 CPD 4pm - 5.30pm Wed, 30 Jun Confidential Information and Data Protection Register here 1.5 CPD 4pm - 5.30pm Mon, 19 Jul Criminal Law Register here 1.5 CPD 4pm - 5.30pm Thu, 22 Jul Competition Law Register here 1.5 CPD 4pm - 5.30pm Tue, 27 Jul Tort Law Register here 1.5 CPD 4pm - 5.30pm Wed, 28 Jul Intellectual Property Law Register here 1.5 CPD 4pm - 5.30pm Wed, 11 Aug Muslim Law Register here 1.5 CPD 4pm - 5.30pm Registration All prices indicated include GST. Annual Review Series 2021 Bundle A: SGD 385.20 SGD 267.50 1. Confidential Information and Data Protection 2. Competition Law 3. Tort Law 4. Intellectual Property Law Annual Review Series 2021 Bundle B: SGD 385.20 SGD 267.50 1. Land Law 2. Criminal Law 3. Tort Law 4. Muslim Law Price per session SGD 96.30 SAL Associate Student Member (To apply, click here) SGD 32.10 per session SAL Annual Review Series 2021 Tue, 23 June Annual Review of 2020 Cases on Land Law This session will encompass a discussion on selected cases decided in the past 5 years up to December 2020. -
SOL LLM Brochure 2021 Copy
SMU – Right in the Heart of Asia’s Hub, Singapore Masters of Laws In the dynamic, cosmopolitan hub that is Singapore, you will find a vibrant city-state that pulses with the diversity of both East and West. LL.M. in Judicial Studies Situated at the cross-roads of the world, Singapore is home to multinational companies and thousands of small and medium-sized LL.M. in Cross-border Business and Finance Law in Asia enterprises flourishing in a smart city renowned for its business excellence and connectivity. With its strong infrastructure, political Dual LL.M. in Commercial Law (Singapore & London) stability and respect for intellectual property rights, this City in a Garden offers you unique opportunities to develop as a global citizen. Thorough. Transnational. Transformative. Tapping into the energy of the city is a university with a difference — the Singapore Management University. Our six schools: the School of Accountancy, Lee Kong Chian School of Business, School of Computing and Information Systems, School of Economics, Yong Pung How School of Law, and School of Social Sciences form the country’s only city campus, perfectly sited to foster strategic links with businesses and the community. Modelled after the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, SMU generates leading-edge research with global impact and produces broad-based, creative and entrepreneurial leaders for a knowledge-based economy. Discover a multi-faceted lifestyle right here at SMU, in the heart of Singapore. The SMU Masters Advantage GLOBAL RECOGNITION SMU is globally recognised as one of the best specialised universities in Asia and the world. -
YOU, the PEOPLE the United Nations, Transitional Administration, and State-Building
International Peace Academy YOU, THE PEOPLE The United Nations, Transitional Administration, and State-Building Project on Transitional Administrations Final Report Simon Chesterman November 2003 About the Project on Transitional Administrations The International Peace Academy’s Project on Transitional Administrations is funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York, with additional funding from the Ford Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Many thanks to David M. Malone, Neclâ Tschirgi, Sebastian von Einsiedel, Dino Kritsiotis, and Kimberly Marten for their comments on an earlier version of this text. The views expressed are those of the author alone. Themes explored in this report are treated more fully in You, the People: The United Nations, Transitional Administration, and State-Building (Oxford University Press, forthcoming). For further information, visit <http://www.ipacademy.org>. About the Author Simon Chesterman is a Senior Associate at the International Peace Academy in New York. He is the author of Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law (Oxford University Press, 2001) and the editor (with Michael Ignatieff and Ramesh Thakur) of Making States Work: State Failure and the Crisis of Governance (United Nations University Press, 2004) and of Civilians in War (Lynne Rienner, 2001). YOU THE PEOPLE Executive Summary • First, the means are inconsistent with the ends. Benevolent autocracy is an uncertain foundation for legitimate and sustainable national • Transitional administrations represent the most governance. It is inaccurate and, often, counter- complex operations attempted by the United productive to assert that transitional administra- Nations. The missions in Kosovo (1999—) and East tion depends upon the consent or ‘ownership’ of Timor (1999–2002) are commonly seen as unique the local population. -
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon
RESPONSE BY CHIEF JUSTICE SUNDARESH MENON OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2018 Monday, 8 January 2018 Mr Attorney, Mr Vijayendran, Members of the Bar, Honoured Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen: I. Introduction 1. It is my pleasure, on behalf of the Judiciary, to welcome you all to the Opening of this Legal Year. I particularly wish to thank the Honourable Chief Justice Prof Dr M Hatta Ali and Justice Takdir Rahmadi of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, the Right Honourable Tun Md Raus Sharif, Chief Justice of Malaysia, and our other guests from abroad, who have made the effort to travel here to be with us this morning. II. Felicitations 2. 2017 was a year when we consolidated the ongoing development of the Supreme Court Bench, and I shall begin my response with a brief recap of the major changes, most of which have been alluded to. 1 A. Court of Appeal 3. Justice Steven Chong was appointed as a Judge of Appeal on 1 April 2017. This was in anticipation of Justice Chao Hick Tin’s retirement on 27 September 2017, after five illustrious decades in the public service. In the same context, Justice Andrew Phang was appointed Vice-President of the Court of Appeal. While we will feel the void left by Justice Chao’s retirement, I am heartened that we have in place a strong team of judges to lead us forward; and delighted that Justice Chao will continue contributing to the work of the Supreme Court, following his appointment, a few days ago, as a Senior Judge. -
4 Comparative Law and Constitutional Interpretation in Singapore: Insights from Constitutional Theory 114 ARUN K THIRUVENGADAM
Evolution of a Revolution Between 1965 and 2005, changes to Singapore’s Constitution were so tremendous as to amount to a revolution. These developments are comprehensively discussed and critically examined for the first time in this edited volume. With its momentous secession from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, Singapore had the perfect opportunity to craft a popularly-endorsed constitution. Instead, it retained the 1958 State Constitution and augmented it with provisions from the Malaysian Federal Constitution. The decision in favour of stability and gradual change belied the revolutionary changes to Singapore’s Constitution over the next 40 years, transforming its erstwhile Westminster-style constitution into something quite unique. The Government’s overriding concern with ensuring stability, public order, Asian values and communitarian politics, are not without their setbacks or critics. This collection strives to enrich our understanding of the historical antecedents of the current Constitution and offers a timely retrospective assessment of how history, politics and economics have shaped the Constitution. It is the first collaborative effort by a group of Singapore constitutional law scholars and will be of interest to students and academics from a range of disciplines, including comparative constitutional law, political science, government and Asian studies. Dr Li-ann Thio is Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore where she teaches public international law, constitutional law and human rights law. She is a Nominated Member of Parliament (11th Session). Dr Kevin YL Tan is Director of Equilibrium Consulting Pte Ltd and Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore where he teaches public law and media law. -
The Decline of Oral Advocacy Opportunities: Concerns and Implications
Published on 6 September 2018 THE DECLINE OF ORAL ADVOCACY OPPORTUNITIES: CONCERNS AND IMPLICATIONS [2018] SAL Prac 1 Singapore has produced a steady stream of illustrious and highly accomplished advocates over the decades. Without a doubt, these advocates have lifted and contributed to the prominence and reputation of the profession’s ability to deliver dispute resolution services of the highest quality. However, the conditions in which these advocates acquired, practised and honed their advocacy craft are very different from those present today. One trend stands out, in particular: the decline of oral advocacy opportunities across the profession as a whole. This is no trifling matter. The profession has a moral duty, if not a commercial imperative, to apply itself to addressing this phenomenon. Nicholas POON* LLB (Singapore Management University); Director, Breakpoint LLC; Advocate and Solicitor, Supreme Court of Singapore. I. Introduction 1 Effective oral advocacy is the bedrock of dispute resolution.1 It is also indisputable that effective oral advocacy is the product of training and experience. An effective advocate is forged in the charged atmosphere of courtrooms and arbitration chambers. An effective oral advocate does not become one by dint of age. 2 There is a common perception that sustained opportunities for oral advocacy in Singapore, especially for junior lawyers, are on the decline. This commentary suggests * This commentary reflects the author’s personal opinion. The author would like to thank the editors of the SAL Practitioner, as well as Thio Shen Yi SC and Paul Tan for reading through earlier drafts and offering their thoughtful insights. 1 Throughout this piece, any reference to “litigation” is a reference to contentious dispute resolution practice, including but not limited to court and arbitration proceedings, unless otherwise stated. -
Lee Kuan Yew V Chee Soon Juan (No 2)
Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan (No 2) [2005] SGHC 2 Case Number : Suit 1459/2001 Decision Date : 06 January 2005 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Kan Ting Chiu J Counsel Name(s) : Davinder Singh SC, Hri Kumar, Nicolas Tang (Drew and Napier LLC) for the plaintiff; The defendant in person Parties : Lee Kuan Yew — Chee Soon Juan Tort – Defamation – Damages – Assessment of damages – Defendant alleging plaintiff mishandling nation's funds – Principles of assessment – Quantification of damages Civil Procedure – Reconvening hearing – Defendant not attending assessment of damages hearing – Defendant applying to reconvene such hearing – Defendant applying to cross-examine plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel in application to reconvene hearing – Factors to consider when deciding whether to grant defendant's applications to reconvene hearing and to cross-examine plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel at such reconvened hearing 6 January 2005 Judgment reserved. Kan Ting Chiu J: 1 This matter came before me for damages to be assessed following a finding that the defendant had defamed the plaintiff. 2 The plaintiff, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, was the Senior Minister of Singapore before he assumed the office of Minister Mentor on 12 August 2004. The defendant, Dr Chee Soon Juan, was and is the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party. 3 This action arose out of words the defendant said in the course of campaigning in the 2001 Parliamentary General Elections. The subject words 4 On 28 October 2001, the defendant spoke at an election rally at Nee Soon Central. He told his audience: Yesterday, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was at his best. -
Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218)
FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 2006 1 First published in the Government Gazette, Electronic Edition, on 8th June 2006 at 5.00 pm. No. 1432 — PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT (CHAPTER 218) NOTICE UNDER SECTION 75 Notice is hereby given, pursuant to section 75 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, that the returns respecting the election expenses and their accompanying statements in connection with the contested parliamentary elections held on 6 May 2006 were received from the election agents of the candidates whose names are set out in the first column of the Schedule on the dates set out in the second column thereof. The returns and statements may be inspected at the office of the Returning Officer, 11 Prinsep Link, Singapore 187949, during office hours on any working day during the period of 6 months from the date of the publication of this Notice. THE SCHEDULE First column Second column 1. Ling How Doong 18 May 2006 2. Steve Chia Kiah Hong 24 May 2006 3. Chiam See Tong 27 May 2006 4. Mohamed Isa B Abdul Aziz 29 May 2006 5. Sin Kek Tong 29 May 2006 6. Yong Chu Leong 29 May 2006 7. Chee Siok Chin 30 May 2006 8. Sng Choon Guan 30 May 2006 9. Abdul Salim Bin Harun 31 May 2006 10. Chan Soo Sen 31 May 2006 11. Cynthia Phua Siok Gek 31 May 2006 12. Denise Phua Lay Peng 31 May 2006 13. Eric Low Siak Meng 31 May 2006 14. Fong Chin Leong 31 May 2006 15. Gan Kim Yong 31 May 2006 16. George Yong-Boon Yeo 31 May 2006 17.