Publication Type

Transcript

Version

submittedVersion

Publication Date

2-2021

Abstract

This note analyses the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in BWG v BWF which allowed the adoption of inconsistent positions across related court proceedings against different parties. The decision raises crucial questions on the limits to be imposed on a party’s freedom to pursue opposing rights in litigation, and how the doctrines of abuse of process, election by waiver, and approbation and reprobation should be applied. It is argued that the court’s application of the abuse of process doctrine obscured the central exercise of assessing all the relevant interests and circumstances. The differing rationales underlying the common law doctrine of election and the equitable doctrine of approbation were also inadequately articulated, resulting in ambivalence concerning why they were deemed inapplicable. Finally, there was a missed opportunity to clarify how the doctrines overlap and yet differ.

Keywords

abuse of process, election, waiver, approbation, reprobation, res judicata

Discipline

Asian Studies | Civil Procedure | Courts

Research Areas

Dispute Resolution

Publication

Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal

Volume

21

Issue

1

First Page

134

Last Page

146

ISSN

1472-9342

Identifier

10.1080/14729342.2021.1877505

Publisher

Taylor & Francis (Routledge): SSH Titles - no Open Select

Copyright Owner and License

Authors

Additional URL

https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2021.1877505

Download

Share

COinS