Resulting Trusts: A Victory for Unjust Enrichment?’ (2014) 73(3) Cambridge Law Journal 500-3 (with T Liau). Review of Andreas Televantos, Capitalism Before Corporations: The Morality of Business Associations and the Roots of Commercial Equity and Law (OUP 2020) (2022) 81 CLJ 202

A Principal’s Mental Incapacity and ‘Termination’ of the Agent’s Authority’ (2024) LQR (forthcoming) Ministerial Acts’ in Paul Davies and Cheng-Han Tan (ed), Intermediaries in Commercial Law (Hart Publishing, 2022)

For example, what is the position where the claim is brought on behalf of the company itself, for example by a liquidator, for losses caused to the company as a result of the (former) employee or officer’s conduct? Should the knowledge or conduct of the director/employee be attributed to the company, thereby providing the director or employee with a defence to the company’s claim on the grounds of ex turpi causa– in other words that the company should be precluded from claiming as a result of its own illegality? The decision by the Supreme Court in relation to the appeal was unanimous and there appears to have been general agreement as to the above proposition, although there were four different judgments produced by the panel of seven Justices, each containing differing analysis and reasoning. For example, the majority considered that the purpose and scope of the defence of illegality should be left for another occasion, whereas Lords Toulson and Hodge (jointly) and Lord Sumption each give detailed and differing analyses of illegality. Lords Toulson and Hodge and Lord Sumption also differed as to the principles to be derived from the decision in Stone & Rolls. For his part, Lord Neuberger (with whom Lords Clarke and Carnwarth agreed), took the view that Stone & Rolls should no longer be treated as being of assistance and is to be confined to its own facts.

The Supreme Court also confirmed that s.213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (which allows liquidators to seek a contribution from any person who was knowingly party to fraudulent trading by the company) has extra-territorial effect as had been previously assumed. In other words, claims can be brought against any person, wherever they are in the world.A Pyrrhic Victory for Unjust Enrichment in Singapore?’(2023) 86 Modern Law Review 518-535 (with T Liau)

Drawing on a wide range of material from across the disparate areas of company law, agency law, and the laws of contract, tort, unjust enrichment, and equitable obligations, this book's central argument is that attribution turns on the allocation and delegation of the company's own powers to act. This approach allows for a much greater and clearer understanding of attribution. A further benefit is that it shows attribution to be much more united and coherent than it is commonly thought to be. Looking at corporate attribution across the broad expanse of the common law, this book will be of interest to lawyers across the common law world, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Singapore. The legal personality of management corporations in strata title developments in Singapore’ [2012] Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 75-79Donatio mortis causa of registered land in the Singapore High Court’ [2011] Trust Law International 145-149