Developments in equity are often attributed to judges who decide leading cases. Other people have claims to be recognised as innovators, such as counsel, law-breakers and scientists. If the two great recent developments in equitable remedies, the Anton Piller order and the Mareva injunction, can be put down to technology, it is not the research scientists or inventors, but the developers of mass production, who have been most significant.

Section 4(1)( c ) of the Singapore Trustees Act gives trustees the power to invest in land, as does the corresponding provision of the Malaysian Trustee Act. However, the power is subject to restrictions and, although it has existed for over fifty years, there are no reported cases on it. This article reviews the restrictions on the trustees' powers to invest in land in the light of the legislative history of the provision and concludes with a recommendation for reform of the law.

This article deals with the many deficiencies in the new model ultra vires doctrine introduced by the recent English Court of Appeal decision in the Rolled Steel case. This article also assesses the impact of this decision on Section 25 of the Singapore Companies Act.

The Privy Council stated in de Lasala v de Lasala set of propositions concerning the effect of English decisions and opinion of the Judicial Committee on the courts of Hong Kong. Last year these views were supplemented, and perhaps contradicted, by remarks in Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd. v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd. The implications of these statements are considered and the attitudes and practices of the Hong Kong courts since de Lasala are explained and criticised. The conclusions reached is that undue deference is paid to House of Lords and Privy Council authority in a manner which is destined to appear incompatible with emerging political realities in Hong Kong. This analysis has obvious relevance for lawyers and legal theory in Singapore and Malaysia.