Nine years after it began, the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea adopted the UN Convention On The Law Of The Sea on 30 April 1982. This article, the first in a series of three, traces the evolution of the law of the sea. In the beginning there was chaos. Out of the chaos, an international legal order, based upon a three-mile territorial sea, gradually emerged. In time, this order was increasingly challenged by unilateral claims of coastal states. Faced with the threat of legal chaos, the international community decided, in 1970, to convene the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea in an attempt to build a new international legal order for the sea.

This article considers how the law of limitation of actions has developed through judicial interpretation of statutory provisions. The main perspective is that of the construction industry and, in particular, it addresses the problems created by latent defects in buildings which materialise after the completion of the construction process. The attempts by the courts to operate the 'Pirelli principle' are discussed and the potential problems created by the so-called 'doomed-from-the-start exception' are explored. The article concludes with a consideration of the legislative response to the difficulties created by hidden defects, namely the Latent Damage Act 1986, and suggests that legislation may also be necessary in jurisdictions such as that of Singapore where similar difficulties are to be anticipated.

The Privy Council's decision in Haw Tua Tau v PP restated the burden of proof at the close of the prosecution's case from that enunciated previously in the Singapore and Malaysian Courts and, in so doing, created a controversy which has not yet been put to rest even after the recent decision of the Singapore Court Of Criminal Appeal in Abdul Ghani v PP. This article attempts to discuss the inherent problems in these cases and the difficulties faced by the judge, counsel and accused at the close of the prosecution case.

In this article an effort is made to explain the policy factors that influence the enactment of the provisions on "cheating" in the Singapore Penal Code. Explanations are also offered as to the manner in which these provisions ought to be interpreted for purposes of ascertaining the offence of "cheating" in cases that involve dishonoured cheques.