About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

6 ISLRev 1 (2019)

handle is hein.journals/ialsrev6 and id is 1 raw text is: 


                                  Editorial


                                  Welcome to the IALS Student Law Review






Welcome to the Spring 2019 issue of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies Student Law Review
(ISLRev). For this issue of the law review towards the end of an academic session we are pleased to
present new writing on a range of international, legislative, financial, social and jurisdictional topics.

Dr Wael Saghir explores the various foreign direct investment protection mechanisms through
categorising them in order of their application so that foreign investors can clearly understand the nature
of these mechanisms, when and how they can be effectively used for their benefit. In today's world,
where many investors and multinational corporations (MNCs) looking to explore new markets, the need
to properly understand the limits of protection available to them becomes of paramount importance

J. Angelo Berbotto considers the contribution of pre-legislative scrutiny to achieving quality legislation
by analysing the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) in respect of
access to legal aid in Private Family Law matters. The article seeks to explain why pre-legislative
scrutiny was not used in relation to the Bill and the red flags throughout the consideration of the Bill by
Parliament. It tracks the monitoring of LASPO once in force and how certain assumptions made by the
Government were not accurate. The author suggests that not using pre-legislative scrutiny in respect
of LASPO was a missed opportunity and that there should be better safeguards to ensure that pre-
legislative scrutiny should be routinely used in respect of Bills that have far-reaching implications for
individuals as, at the moment, it is up to the Government to decide what Bills are provided for pre-
legislative scrutiny before their formal introduction into Parliament.

Shiqing Yu explores the issue of bank secrecy drawing her inspiration from Switzerland and Singapore.
The principle of bank secrecy continues to be regarded as one of the primary aspects of private banking.
Switzerland has long been accused of being one of the main tools of organised crime and the
underground economy both by governments and Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), particularly
after the class action suit against the Clearstream scandal, the Vatican Bank, and the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. In addition to Switzerland, Singapore was ranked 5th on the Financial Secrecy Index (FSI) in
2018, and faced a delicate conundrum because of the signs of crisis in emerging economies such as
Indonesia and India, and came under growing pressure from the U.S. and Europe, which accused it of
providing unfair advantages in the competition of tax havens. With the advent of money laundering and
the Anti-Money Laundering regulatory crack down, the author explores the extent to which bank secrecy
are still kept as secrets.

Yee Ching Leung takes the two landmark cases, Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott
[2011] UKSC 53, as starting points to consider the new Common Intention Constructive Trust approach
in dealing with the issue of how the beneficial interest of a property is to be shared between two
separating cohabitants. The article analyses whether this new approach should be preferred over the
traditional Resulting Trust approach. The author explains the two approaches and gives three
arguments in support of the Resulting Trust approach. First, it provides a greater degree of certainty,
which is crucial in property law. Secondly, the traditional approach is more coherent in principle when
comparing to the Common Intention Constructive Trust approach. Thirdly, the author argues that the
Resulting Trust approach would not leave the discretion of judges unconfined. Toward the end of the
article, the author gives two brief replies to the critics of the Resulting Trust approach. However, the
Common Intention Constructive Trust approach is now the law of England and whether the Resulting
Trust approach will return remains to be seen.


                        IALS Student Law Review I Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2019, pp 1=2 I Page 1
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most