Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

2019

Equity

Series

Singapore Management University

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

A Reformulated Test For Unconscionability, Vincent Ooi, Walter Yong Jun 2019

A Reformulated Test For Unconscionability, Vincent Ooi, Walter Yong

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Apart from its interesting facts, this case, BOM v BOK [2018] SGCA 83, is significant for its rejection of a “broad” doctrine of unconscionability, the existence of which has been a matter of some debate in English law, and which has been accepted in Australia (see Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 C.L.R. 447; (1983) 46 A.L.R. 402). It also proposes a new test for the doctrine of unconscionability that is narrower than Amadio, based on the requirements inCresswell v Potter [1978] 1 W.L.R. 255. The test for unconscionability in English law has been a matter of …


Equitable Compensation And The Brickenden “Rule” After Winsta Holding Pte Ltd And Another V Sim Poh Ping And Others, Nicholas Liu Apr 2019

Equitable Compensation And The Brickenden “Rule” After Winsta Holding Pte Ltd And Another V Sim Poh Ping And Others, Nicholas Liu

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The Brickenden rule, which was thought to provide an exception to the requirement of but-for causation of loss in equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty, has recently been rejected by the Singapore High Court in Winsta Holding Pte Ltd and another v Sim Poh Ping and others (Winsta Holding). This case comment suggests that although the substantive position arrived at in Winsta Holding is a sound one, it should not entail a rejection of the Brickenden rule. Properly understood, the Brickenden “rule” is consistent with the requirement that the principal prove but-for causation.