About the project
The Singapore Academy of Law’s Law Reform Committee recommended reform of the double actionability rule, which provides that an act which is done abroad is actionable as a tort in Singapore if it is both actionable as a tort according to Singapore law and the law where the act was done. The Committee noted that other countries such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom had replaced the rule with a more ‘international’ choice of law rule that reflected changes in communications, trade and cross-border intercourse, and made it easier for a plaintiff to obtain redress in respect of a tort committed abroad.
Project status: Completed
- The report was published on 31 March 2003.
- The report was cited in the following court judgments:
- Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull  SGCA 39,  1 Singapore Law Reports (Reissue) [SLR(R)] 377 at paragraph 66, the Court of Appeal noting that any abolition or reform of the double actionability rule is, if at all, a subject for legislative rather than judicial reform.
- EFT Holdings, Inc v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd  SGCA 64,  1 SLR 860 at paragraph 58, Court of Appeal.
- IM Skaugen SE v MAN Diesel & Turbo SE  SGHC 123 at paragraph 84, High Court.
- The report was also cited in the following works:
- William Tong Su Hern, “Warnings for a New Beginning: Torts (Choice of Law) Bill”  Singapore Journal of Legal Studies [Sing J Legal Studies] 288.
- WIlliam Tong Su Hern, “Singapore Private International Law on Torts: Inappropriate For Modern Times?”  Sing J Legal Studies 405 at page 412, footnote 62.
- Tan Yock Lin & Yeo Tiong Min, “The Conflict of Laws: Themes, Fundamentals and Obstacles” in Yeo Tiong Min, Hans Tjio & Tang Hang Wu (general editors), SAL Conference 2011: Developments in Singapore Law between 2006 and 2010: Trends and Perspectives (Singapore: Academy Publishing, 2011), 575 at page 642, paragraph 128, footnote 341.
Areas of law
◾ Conflict of laws
◾ Tort law
Click on the image above to view the report
Last updated 11 June 2019