A spouse's duty of full and frank disclosure takes on a heightened importance in the division of matrimonial assets due to procedural constraints inherent in ancillary proceedings. If a spouse fails to make full and frank disclosure of his or her assets, an adverse inference may be drawn against him or her. This note reviews the recent Singapore Court of Appeal decision in UZN v UZM on the circumstances under which an adverse inference may be drawn against a non-disclosing spouse, and the different approaches that could be taken to give effect to the adverse inference.

In UYK v UYJ , the High Court (Family Division) provided useful guidance on how and to what extent COVID-19 should have an impact on parental relocation of children. This note argues that while the court's approach is sensible in recognising the fast-evolving nature of COVID-19, caution should be taken in ensuring that the effects of COVID-19 on the child’s health and the child's loss of relationship with the left-behind parent are not overlooked.

Judicial Review of Administrative Action Across the Common Law World: Origins and Adaptation is an important achievement in comparative administrative law. While comparative constitutional law enjoys significant attention and has developed a sizeable and sophisticated body of academic literature, the field of comparative administrative law is relatively much less well-traversed. This volume is therefore much to be welcomed as an effort to give comparative administrative law the attention it deserves - both as an important milestone in comparative administrative law scholarship itself, and as a foundation for further scholarly work in this regard.

Venture capital ("VC") is considered an essential component of any economy, as it engenders innovation and fosters the growth of early-stage business ventures. If so, how does one develop a VC market? This question has exercised the minds of scholars, and a number of theories have been proffered, including the reliance on private contracting and the intervention of the government (Ronald J Gilson, Engineering a Venture Capital Market: Lessons from the American Experience (2003); Christopher Gulinello, Engineering aVenture Capital Market and the Effects of Government Control on Private Ordering: Lessons from the Taiwan Experience (2005)).

Originating from Professor Torrie's doctoral dissertation, this monograph presents a thorough and comprehensive inquiry into the genesis and transformation of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA"), the premier bankruptcy law in Canada. Its central research questions are twofold. Firstly, what accounts for the historical ascendancy of the CCAA from its initial modest to its contemporary status as representing the major corporate restructuring regime in Canada? Secondly, how might this historical account of the CCAA contribute to broader understandings of corporate bankruptcy law and cycles of legal change at large?

On 5 and 6 December 2019, the Faculty of Law at the National University of Singapore ("NUS Law") hosted about 100 participants at the 8th Asian Privacy Scholars Network ("APSN") Conference at its Bukit Timah Campus, convened by Professor David Tan. The conference was jointly presented by the EW Barker Centre for Law & Business and the Centre for Technology, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & the Law ("TRAIL")—both research centres at NUS Law. TRAIL was also launched by Mr Edwin Tong, Senior Minister of State for Law and Health, on the first day of the conference.

As comparative lawyer Otto Kahn-Freund observed in the mid-1970s, there is a "far reaching free trade in legal ideas. Far reaching, not all embracing". We see this manifested in the law of privacy, whether understood in the traditional sense of freedom from intrusion into private life or some more extended sense of, for instance, control over personal information or physical or sensory integrity stretching beyond the enjoyment of an intimate interior private life. On the one hand, there is a great deal of cross-fertilisation across jurisdictions as elements of the law of one are copied in others, allowing certain broad groupings to evolve. On the other hand, there are still many differences between and within these groupings which may be partly due to the different legal contexts of the laws, but are also partly due to factors having to do with different social-cultural histories and norms, as well as different political environments within which laws are developed, interpreted, and enforced. These tensions have ongoing implications for the protection of privacy in the digital century. Yet there are hopeful signs of the possibility of convergence around legal standards of privacy protection in the future, as in the present and past—for all the legal, social-cultural and political differences that remain and for all the new challenges to privacy that we can expect to see.

This article explores whether design of enforcement mechanisms in data privacy laws influences the types of privacy harms addressed by them through evaluating evidence of enforcement from four jurisdictions. It uses three of the foundational design principles identified by Cavoukian to examine if each category of data privacy (data quality, access rights, use, disclosure, security and so forth) should be addressed through enforcement tools suited to their characteristics. The evidence supports the need for proactive regulator-led enforcement, rather than reactive litigation by complainants in relation to some areas. Such enforcement also has an educative function aligning with the principle of transparency. Where full functionality necessitates mechanisms for individuals to litigate complaints, the research found that specialist tribunals were more sympathetic to complainants than were courts. It also discovered that litigation by individuals tended to be linked to disputes between the parties unrelated to privacy and addressed only harms that came to light through complainants' prior knowledge. Finally, the evidence from each jurisdiction studied provides useful lessons for other jurisdictions as to both the conduct targeted and the need for substantive rules such as erasure or the right to be forgotten.

The proliferation of data-driven markets continues to raise questions about their implications for the right to data protection. A recent suggestion is that EU competition law can and should be used to address data protection concerns in the age of big data. However, the European Commission is reluctant to consider data protection issues in EU competition law, maintaining instead that competition law is not the right tool to promote the right to data protection. Yet, following the Treaty of Lisbon, data protection is a fundamental right under Article 16 of the TFEU as well as Article 8 of the Charter. Therefore, considering that the EU is under a duty to promote fundamental rights by virtue of Article 51 of the Charter, this paper argues that data protection should be among the objectives of EU competition law.

In this paper, we compare four patient rights regarding data stored in NEHRs under nine European and Asia-Pacific jurisdictions. We aim to ascertain whether the success and failure of NEHR implementations could be attributable to differences in patient rights. We note that while there is a convergence of access controls, there is a divergence with respect to controlling third-party access and modifying patient data. Analysing these divergences through four bioethical principles defined by Beauchamp and Childress, we find claims of patient empowerment mask a neoliberal perspective of outsourcing responsibility to patients. Likewise, refusing sufficient granular control can contribute to patient mistrust.We argue that it is important to conceptualise NEHRs as a public good and design regulatory frameworks accordingly.