An ancient rule of the conflict of laws holds that a court will not enforce the revenue law of a foreign country. It is capable of producing peculiar results, especially when it is recalled that there is no equivalent bar to the recognition of a foreign revenue law and the line which separates the two techniques is far from bright. Moreover, it produces manifestly unsatisfactory results when a fraudster, looter, or smuggler deploys it as a meretricious shield against an investigation of the illegality of his conduct. This paper attempts to ask where existing law might have gone wrong, and whether it might yield to a spot of gentle reinterpretation, by drawing on the broader doctrines of the common law conflict of laws in the hope of producing more rational results.

This article critiques Birks' "The Law of Unjust Enrichment: A Millennial Resolution." It attempts to articulate the problems inherent in Birks' proposed taxonomy for today's legal system. It puts forward an alternative model of the relationship between wrong and remedy - allowing for flexibility and the concept of appropriateness. Wrong and remedy are not completely independent from each other. They exist in a "sticky" relationship that guides the relief granted in each situation. A hard and fast taxonomy is doomed to failure. This article presents a solution to this problem where taxonomy is based on a loose and dynamic federation of remedies.

The enactment of section 67A to the Companies Act of Malaysia allows its publicly listed companies to buy-back their own shares. This was seen as necessary to provide for a stabilization of the supply and demand, as well as the price, of shares that are listed on both the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange and the Malaysian Exchange of Securities Dealing and Automated Quotation. However, although apparently simple in its presentation, section 67A contains a number of unresolved enigmas. This article examines the regulatory framework with respect to share repurchases by listed companies in Malaysia. It commences with an overview of the legal and economic rationale for share buy-backs before proceeding to discuss the pertinent features of the current framework and drawing comparisons with other jurisdictions. The article thereafter elaborates upon specific proposals that are necessary to address the shortcomings that are identified. It concludes with a summary of the principal recommendations which will simultaneously simplify the existing framework as well as enhance the protection of shareholders and creditors of the company.

Despite the well stated differences between the "real danger" and the "reasonable apprehension" of bias tests as employed by English and Australian courts respectively in determining when a judge should be disqualified by reason of bias, the method of implementation of the latter test over the last decade poses the question whether the differences are more apparent than real. Rather, it is the recent rejection by the High Court of Australia in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy of the "automatic disqualification" rule as set out by the House of Lords in R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate; Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) which more clearly marks the differences between the jurisdictions in this area of the law.

The decision of the High Court in PP v Knight Glenn Jeyasingam contains what is probably the most important discussion of the law of privilege in recent years. A plea negotiation privilege was brought into existence, without express statutory sanction, through the medium of "purposive interpretation". This article uses this decision as a springboard to discuss the two core issues in the law of privilege - the determination of whether a privilege should exist at all, and the task of marking the boundaries of an existing privilege. The meaning of "purposive interpretation" in the context of a clash between contending and incompatible social values -the integrity of the judicial fact-finding process and the value sought to be protected by the privilege - is explored.