Arushi Bhagotra and Tejas Sateesha Hinder, ‘Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses vis-à-vis Dispute Resolution in the UK: What in 2022 in the Aftermath of Brexit?’

The question of UK’s consent to and enforcement of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses since the Brexit has been a pressing one owing to prevailing uncertainty over conventional grounds and ascertainment of the nature of clauses regarded as asymmetric jurisdiction clauses. In this article, the enforceability of Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses is discussed along with the UK’s existing stance with relation to them, as well as a potential road ahead.

Arushi Bhagotra and Tejas Sateesha Hinder, Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses vis-à-vis Dispute Resolution in the UK: What in 2022 in the Aftermath of Brexit? (July 2022).

Stéphane Sérafin, Review of Possession, Relativity of Title and Ownership in English Law by Luke Rostill

“It is often said that the Anglo-American legal tradition recognizes only a ‘relative’ conception of title, in which no person is ever truly able to claim an exclusive right in or to a thing, only a better claim to it than someone else. Luke Rostill’s recent book, Possession, Relativity of Title and Ownership in English Law, appears at first glance to offer a sustained defense of something very much like this perspective, by arguing that possession in English law serves as a means of acquiring a full fee simple estate in land, or a general property interest in chattels, even in respect of things already owned by others …”

Sérafin, Stéphane, Possession, Relativity of Title and Ownership in English Law by Luke Rostill (Book Review) (December 15, 2021). (2022) 66 Canadian Business Law Journal 148.

Sebastian Steuer, ‘Common Ownership and the (Non-)Transparency of Institutional Shareholdings: An EU-US Comparison’

This paper compares the extent of common ownership in the US and the EU stock markets, with a particular focus on differences in the applicable ownership transparency requirements. Most empirical research on common ownership to date has focused on US issuers, largely relying on ownership data obtained from institutional investors’ 13F filings. This type of data is generally not available for EU issuers. Absent 13F filings, researchers have to use ownership records sourced from mutual funds’ periodic reports and blockholder disclosures. Constructing a ‘reduced dataset’ that seeks to capture only ownership information available for both EU and US issuers, I demonstrate that the ‘extra’ ownership information introduced by 13F filings is substantial. However, even when taking differences in the transparency situation into due account, common ownership among listed EU firms is much less pronounced than among listed US firms by any measure. This is true even if the analysis is limited to non-controlled firms.

Steuer, Sebastian, Common Ownership and the (Non-)Transparency of Institutional Shareholdings: An EU-US Comparison (July 25, 2022). SAFE Working Paper No 354.

Roark and Fox, ‘Comparative Property Law and the Pandemic: Vulnerability Theory and Resilient Property in an Age of Crises’

Political and property crises present vital new questions for property theorists, and analyses of state responses to these crises cast new light on how property systems, and property law, adapt and evolve to meet complex challenges – while remaining institutionally resilient themselves. The novel coronavirus pandemic was an extreme, exceptional, unexpected, significant ‘shock’ event, with financial, economic, social, cultural, and political impacts on a scale not experienced since at least the 1930s. The pandemic posed an unexpected, unpredictable, and urgent threat to human life that demanded immediate action, delivered under intense public scrutiny. The challenges were ‘wicked’: governments were compelled to act, in conditions of uncertainty and in response to a complex set of high-stakes problems, with imperfect information about the impacts of policy choices or the likely endpoint of the pandemic.

In acting swiftly to protect their populations, governments adopted radical strategies to shore up housing and home, to tackle street homelessness, and to protect tenants and mortgagors from the threat of eviction. Perhaps most notably, pandemic policies to protect housing intervened with private property law in ways that were unimaginable before spring 2020. In this Article, we examine the range of ways that governments adapted their approaches to property, housing, and homelessness during the pandemic. We analyze the adaptation of property rules in the pandemic using the new theoretical and methodological framework of ‘Resilient Property’. We consider the implications of the actions to adjust the laws and policies that govern property, housing, eviction, and homelessness, and reflect on the legacies of these actions for property theories and property law.

Roark, Marc L and Roark, Marc L and Fox, Lorna, Comparative Property Law and the Pandemic: Vulnerability Theory and Resilient Property in an Age of Crises (July 19, 2022). Louisiana Law Review, volume 82, no 3, 2022.

Hanoch Dagan, ‘Liberal Property and The Power of Law’

In A Liberal Theory of Property I argue that property is one of society’s major power-conferring institutions. Property confers upon people some measure of private authority over things (both tangible and intangible). This temporally-extended private authority dramatically augments people’s ability to plan and carry out meaningful projects, either on their own or with the cooperation of others. Property’s empowerment, in other words, enhances people’s self-determination. But as such property also disables (other) people and renders them vulnerable to owners’ authority. Therefore, to be (and remain) legitimate, property requires constant vigilance. A genuinely liberal property must expand people’s opportunities for individual and collective self-determination while carefully restricting their options of interpersonal domination …

Dagan, Hanoch, Liberal Property and The Power of Law (July 15, 2022). Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence (forthcoming 2022).

Jasmine McNealy, ‘An Ecological Approach to Data Governance’

This article offers critical investigation of data and how it should be redefined and governed to produce more transparency and mitigate possible harms to individuals and communities because of its use in AI systems. In essence, this article argues that data should be viewed as a networked representation or observation. This definition recognizes that data is not singular, but always comes attached with labels, contexts, and biases fastened from its inception, if not collection, and that attachments increase depending on its place in the ecosystem. This view also requires a different strategy for governance – one that acknowledges data’s nature and networked existence, and moves beyond the individualistic, consent-based current models. Such an approach allows for the creation of better frameworks for collection, use, storage, access, and security of data. At the same time, this writing lays out a research agenda for further exploration of frameworks for harm reduction.

McNealy, Jasmine E, An Ecological Approach to Data Governance (July 15, 2021).

Loke and Sin, ‘Constructing Lawful Act Duress – Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistan International Airlines Corporation

The debate over whether the doctrine of lawful act duress exists has been settled in the affirmative by the UK Supreme Court in Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistan International Airlines Corporation. However, the elements by which one establishes lawful act duress was the subject of disagreement between Lord Hodge (who delivered the majority judgment) and Lord Burrows. The disagreement stems from how illegitimate pressure should be constructed. Should illegitimate pressure be ascertained from all the circumstances – without the necessity for a more detailed analytical structure? Or given the lawful nature of the threat, should one focus on what renders the demand unjustified, and require proof of a bad faith demand and conduct which created or increased the victim’s vulnerability? We examine the debate over the existence of the doctrine, how it should be analysed, and how the answers are impacted by the existence of other legal controls over bargaining power and the value placed on the freedom of contract.

Loke, Alexander and Sin, Ivan, Constructing Lawful Act Duress – Times Travel (UK) Ltd V Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (March 2022). Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, March 2022, pp 239-251.

Timothy Liau, ‘No-Oral-Variation Clauses and our Powers to Vary Contracts – Charles Lim Teng Siang v Hong Choon Hau

In Charles Lim v Hong Choon Hau [2021] SGCA 43, the Singapore Court of Appeal delivered an important judgment on no-oral-variation clauses, and their legal effect. This note analyses the reasoning of the Court, addressing also some implications the case might have on future developments.

Liau, Timothy, No-Oral-Variation Clauses and our Powers to Vary Contracts – Charles Lim Teng Siang v Hong Choon Hau (March 2022). Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, March 2022, pp 225-238.

Ardavan Arzandeh, ‘The New Rules of Court and the Service-Out Jurisdiction in Singapore’

The new civil procedure rules for the General Division of the High Court in Singapore, excluding the Singapore International Commercial Court – the Rules of Court 2021 – were gazetted on 1 December 2021, and will come into operation on 1 April 2022. This article examines the impact of the new civil justice regime on the Singapore courts’ approach to assuming jurisdiction over foreign-based defendants (the ‘service-out jurisdiction’). Prior to its publication, it had been anticipated that ROC 2021 would significantly alter the manner in which the service-out jurisdiction would be asserted. However, as this article highlights, under ROC 2021, and the accompanying Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, the courts’ overall approach to exercising jurisdiction over defendants outside Singapore is destined to remain largely unaltered. In general terms, this outcome is to be welcomed, as it avoids the conceptual and practical problems that would have arisen had some of the more far-reaching reforms proposed when drafting ROC 2021 been, in fact, implemented.

Arzandeh, Ardavan, The New Rules of Court and the Service-Out Jurisdiction in Singapore (March 2022). Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, March 2022, pp 191-201.

Yun-chien Chang, ‘Property and Empirical Comparative Legal Studies’

Building on existing empirical comparative property law works, this chapter points out three different types of additional property data needed for future works: data on substance of property law, data on how property law operates, and data on property-related law in other fields such as criminal law and constitutional law. As examples, this chapter offers three future works that could take off with more comparative data. First, a more comprehensive good-faith index that measures to what extent lawmakers explicitly account for the role of parties’ knowledge may offer a quantitative measure of the structure of private law. Second, protection of property law has long been linked to the theory of economic development. Panel data on property doctrines enable tests of legal origin theories that attempt to explain economic growth by the substance of law. Third, knowing the types of immovable property registration enables scholars to measure the level of third-party information costs and test theories in property law and economics.

Chang, Yun-chien, Property and Empirical Comparative Legal Studies (July 16, 2022).