This article examines whether in Singapore an employee has a general right of privacy in the employment context and if there is no such right, whether privacy can nonetheless be enforced through indirect means.

This article examines the English and local cases dealing with the jurisdiction agreements that point non-exclusively to a particular forum. It considers the effect the law has accorded, and should accord, to such agreements in two main contexts: the granting of leave for service out of jurisdiction or the stay of proceedings commenced in the local forum, as the case may be, and the granting of anti-suit injunctions to restrain parties from commencing or continuing with foreign proceedings in non-contractual fora. It argues that an approach sensitive to the parties' intention for having such agreements, the inference of which depends on the finding of particular factors in each case, would perhaps provide the best guide for the effect the law should accord to such agreements.

The aim of this article is to consider what amounts to entrapment, and under what circumstances (if any) such conduct should be regarded as permissible. The main focus of the article is upon the arguments for and against allowing entrapment, although there is also consideration of the ways in which the criminal justice system (including the courts) ought to respond to cases of entrapment.

This article tries to say as simply as possible why we must take seriously the project of constructing a law of unjust enrichment. It answers those who might assert that the twentieth century success of the law of restitution has rendered that project redundant. It says how the law of unjust enrichment differs from the law of restitution and warns against allowing the language of unjust enrichment to be understood in a sense which would erode or eliminate those differences. The twenty-first century law of unjust enriched will emerge from the law of restitution, but something must be left behind. The butterfly will differ from the caterpillar.

The Present essay surveys the life and work of the first Dean of the Law Faculty, Professor LA Sheridan. It traces his initial career and his subsequent work in establishing the local law school. In this latter respect, this essay examines Professor Sheridan's visions and goals - and how these were realised in a tangible manner through his prodigious efforts in the directions of staff and student recruitment, the establishment of an appropriate curriculum and the law library, as well as his encouragement of legal research through the production of not only books and periodical articles but also the establishment of the then University of Malaya Law Review (now renamed the Singapore Journal of Legal Studies). Professor Sheridan's own amazing range, quality as well as quantity of scholarship is then described. The title of the present essay attempts to capture both these strands, viz, the pivotal role he played in the foundation of the local law faculty and his sterling scholarship, which he continues to produce even today, many years after his retirement.