Publication Type
Journal Article
Version
acceptedVersion
Publication Date
1-2013
Abstract
Oftentimes, based on the facts of a case, what justice requires is reasonably clear; yet, when the clever arguments of the defendant’s lawyers have to be dealt with, the Judge faces difficult, even insurmountable obstacles as he seeks the legal justification for the result which he knows (or feels) is the correct one. Rubenstein v HSBC1is such a case. The Rubensteinjudgment is not easy to digest, for several reasons. First, the claims traversed statutory duty, tort of negligence and contract and, along with that, the perennial vexed question of whether different paths should lead to the same result. Second, the core of the decision involves related arguments and issues of causation, remoteness, foreseeability and scope of duty. Third, the reader would have been much assisted if the appeal Judge had been more systematic by segregating the discussion of the law from its application to the facts.
Discipline
Commercial Law
Research Areas
Corporate, Finance and Securities Law
Publication
Singapore Law Gazette
First Page
19
Last Page
25
ISSN
1019-942X
Publisher
LexisNexis Asia Pacific
Citation
LOW, Kee Yang.
Causation, remoteness, scope of duty and the Rubenstein decision. (2013). Singapore Law Gazette. 19-25.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2601
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.