The Singapore courts often state that judicial review of executive decision-making ought only to involve an inquiry into the ‘legality’ of a decision or the ‘decision-making process’, and not the ‘decision itself’ or its ‘merits’ – let us call this the ‘Distinction’. This article argues that the Distinction should be expunged from Singapore law. The Distinction has its roots in English case law which aimed to prevent the courts from arbitrarily substituting their decision for the executive's by reason of mere disagreement. But Singapore case law has gone further and treated the Distinction as a general principle applicable to all of administrative law. However, the Distinction is too vague for this purpose (as seen from Singapore cases which have interpreted the distinction inconsistently). It is conceptually problematic, incompatible with the practicalities of judicial review (particularly substantive review as recognized in Singapore law), and has occasionally been paid lip service but not followed in substance. The Distinction cannot form a coherent principle to guide the courts and ought to be replaced by a more nuanced application of constitutional principles relevant to determining the appropriate scope of review. Whatever these principles may be, and however they are to be balanced, the Distinction can be but an over-inclusive rough approximation of them which hampers the development of the law.

From the size of A4 paper to 5G in the telecommunications sector, standards are ubiquitous. Standard essential patents (SEPs), which protect technology essential to standards, enable their proprietors to gain significant market power. Antitrust authorities therefore scrutinize the exercise of SEPs for breaches of competition law. In this regard, the ability of SEP proprietors to obtain injunctions against implementers as a remedy for infringement of SEPs where licensing negotiations have broken down or are ‘ongoing’ has proven controversial. Some fear that this enables SEP proprietors to threaten injunctions unless implementers agree to unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory terms. In Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v ZTE Corp [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:477, the Court of Justice of the European Union identified circumstances where a SEP proprietor's application for injunctive relief as a remedy for infringement of its SEP constitutes an abuse of a dominant position, with the classification of the SEP proprietor's application as being abusive forming a ‘FRAND Defence’ which implementers may invoke against the grant of the injunction requested. This article analyzes whether this approach can be replicated by the Singapore Courts and whether the Chinese Courts, which have already dealt with SEP licensing disputes, adopt a similar approach.

In upholding a consumer's right to information, regulations prohibiting misleading or deceptive conduct perform a critical role in supporting consumer welfare and encouraging equity in business and commerce. While Vietnam enacted a Law on Consumer Protection in 2010, its provisions in this area are limited in ambit and application. In order to improve the effectiveness of a consumer's right to information in Vietnam, it is useful to examine the Australia Consumer Law which has a sophisticated regulatory framework in this area. By comparing the laws prohibiting misleading or deceptive conduct in the Vietnamese Law on Consumer Protection and the Australia Consumer Law, this article identifies certain similarities and differences between the two legal systems, thereby clarifying shortcomings that can lead to inadequacies and inefficiencies of this area of the law and providing a platform for law reform in Vietnam.

The rise in defamation claims in Malaysia has placed an onerous workload on the courts to deal with such matters. Against this backdrop, Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC (as his Lordship then was) (Hamid Sultan JC) suggested in two separate High Court decisions that to alleviate the courts’ burden, matters pertaining to libel and slander ought to be constrained to the criminal courts through appropriate statutory amendments, including to the Criminal Procedure Code (Malaysia). In this paper, the author cautions against the learned Hamid Sultan JC's recommendations and proffers an alternative proposal in the form of media arbitration schemes to handle the growing influx of defamation claims. In particular, the salient features of the IMPRESS and IPSO Schemes from the United Kingdom are scrutinized in detail and measured in terms of suitability for a potential arbitration scheme in the Malaysian jurisdiction.

This article explores Japanese transactional lawyers’ attempts to transplant American legal practice concerning corporate acquisition contracts into Japan. Despite their extensive efforts to disseminate legal concepts originating from the common law into the Japanese legal community, their transplantation attempts produced somewhat unexpected results by the promoters of the transplant. Faced with unfamiliar drafting styles and legal concepts, Japanese courts interpreted American-style corporate acquisition contracts in accordance with traditional Japanese-style contract interpretation. As a result, attempts by Japanese practitioners at transplantation were incomplete. This incompleteness is attributable to their inattention to the differences in approaches to contract interpretation between Japanese and New York courts. New York's approach is much more formalistic and literal than Japan's. If fully aware, however, they could have filled the gap by using functional substitutes for American techniques of controlling adjudicators’ contract interpretation which would effectively operate under Japanese law. Japan's experience confirms that a widely supported view in comparative law scholarship that transplanted law does not necessarily operate in the recipient jurisdiction as it did in its host jurisdiction is applicable to the transplantation of contract drafting practices.

Wealth management products have been popular investment vehicles in China, and they are governed by standard form contracts. Existing studies mainly focus on the risk of such products and suggest having special laws to provide more protection for customers. Little is known about the actual contents of wealth management product contracts. Based on 66 hand-collected wealth management product contracts from major Chinese commercial banks, this article tries to explore the contractual relationship between giant banks and individual customers. It also tests the exploitation theory in a Chinese context by analysing whether the wealth management product contracts are more pro-seller or pro-buyer relative to the laws and regulations in China. Our findings reinforce the argument that standard form contracts are designed in favour of the sellers. The wealth management product contracts are tilted toward the commercial banks relative to the default rules. These contracts contain massive clauses that limit banks’ liabilities and restrict customers’ choice of conflict resolution mechanisms. However, a counter-intuitive finding is that national commercial banks provide less pro-seller terms than the local ones. We argue that the explanations for such variation in contract practices among Chinese commercial banks lie in the enforcement of relevant laws and regulations and the unique nature of national commercial banks.

The field of comparative law prioritizes the ascertainment of universals or commonalities across laws, two chimerical pursuits. In the process, comparative research abides significant distortion of information, not always in good faith, and a correlative loss of intellectual warrant. This article urges acknowledgment of such serious epistemic deficit, of its detrimental impact on comparative law, and of the need to restore intellectual integrity to comparative research in law through a radically different approach to foreignness.