The Nature of Property in Cryptoassets

While cryptoassets have generally been accepted as a form of property in Commonwealth jurisdictions, it remains unclear how specific property rules apply. What is required for title to a cryptoasset to be legally transferred? Is a blockchain transaction necessary or sufficient for that purpose? If a transaction is unauthorised or procured by fraud, when (if ever) do subsequent purchasers take free of the original owner’s title? These questions are relevant, for example, to proprietary disputes in crypto litigation and the structuring of secured crypto-finance arrangements.

Justifying Concurrent Claims in Private International Law

Should claimants be entitled to sue either in contract or tort (or both sans double recovery) on a single set of facts? In domestic law, the answer to this question – the question of concurrent liability – matters because obvious differences exist between contract and tort: different remoteness, remedial, and limitation rules apply, for example. Choosing between these claims allows claimants to maximise the chances and consequences of success. Is this justifiable?

Liability for Environmental Harm to the Global Commons

On 10 November 1988, the oil tanker Odyssey broke apart in the North Atlantic 700 miles off the Canadian coast. With 132,000 tons of crude oil released into the marine environment, it was one of the largest oil spills to have ever occurred. However, because it occurred in the high seas and did not reach the shores of any state, no response actions were taken, even though marine environmental harm almost certainly occurred. The pollution did not trigger the same sort of response as an oil spill in maritime areas under sovereignty (such as territorial waters) or under national jurisdiction (such as Exclusive Economic Zones) because the harm itself was to the environment per se as opposed to impacting the economic interests of a particular state or private actor. Even if the consequent environmental harm was quantifiable and compensable, it is not clear what legal entities would have the right to recover for the loss suffered. This is a function of the nature of the high seas as a “global commons” area or an area beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), where no state has jurisdiction and where harm is suffered by all states and arguably by all humankind, given the interconnected nature of the oceans and the variety of ecosystem services it provides.

Corporate Governance in Singapore – The Road Thus Far

The first Code of Corporate Governance was adopted in Singapore 21 years ago in 2001. Since then, the Code has been re-issued three times, the last being in 2018. There has also been a shift in approach taken by the Singapore regulators with regards to how corporate governance should be enforced among companies, especially those listed on the Singapore Exchange. From a voluntary “comply-or-explain” approach to partially mandatory, instilling the right degree of corporate governance in Singapore companies has been a balancing act for the regulators throughout these years.

Schrödinger’s Lawful Act Duress: Dead or Alive?

Can you set aside a contract if you were induced to enter it by my application of lawful pressure that may threaten your economic interests, reputation, or your concern to protect a loved one? This raises difficult policies since the only viable basis for discriminating between acceptable and unacceptable pressures is not positive law but social morality. On the other hand, if lawful pressures are always exempt, those who devise outrageous but technically lawful means of compulsion must always escape. The courts have accepted that the categories of duress are not closed and that an illegitimate threat can include one which is lawful, although it must ‘at least be immoral or unconscionable’. What then falls within this category of lawful act duress?

Sentencing Offenders for Driving Dangerously or Carelessly While Under Influence: Resolving the Double-counting Quandary

The Singapore legislature introduced a set of refined and interlinked provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1961 (RTA), which came into force on 1 November 2019. These provisions were intended to deal better with cases in Singapore where motorists drove dangerously or carelessly while under influence of drink or drugs. However, these provisions when applied may give rise to an issue of double-counting in punishment, and the way in which the courts have applied these provisions is such that in some cases this double-counting is fully ameliorated while in other cases it is not.

A New Fashion Vocabulary and its Implications for Trademark Law

The whimsical and ephemeral trends of the fashion world can be confounding and yet rewarding at the same time. As luxury fashion brands such as Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Versace, Balenciaga and Vetements capitalise on ironic cultural references to rejuvenate sales and capture new customer segments, their actions have resulted in unanticipated implications for trademark law. Simultaneously, countercultural commentary is also taking the form of subversive parodic and satirical fashion merchandise which audaciously play with the semiotic signs of these famous trademarks.

Good Models Borrow, Great Models Steal: Intellectual Property Rights and Generative AI

Two critical policy questions will determine the impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) on the knowledge economy and the creative sector. The first concerns how we think about the training of such models — in particular, whether the creators or owners of the data that are ‘scraped’ (lawfully or unlawfully, with or without permission) should be compensated for that use.