The rule in Saunders v Vautier permits a beneficiary to terminate a trust if the beneficiary is of adult age, of sound mind and compels the trustees to transfer the legal estate to the beneficiary, thereby terminating the trust. This may be problematic as a testator may wish for the beneficiary’s share in his estate to be held on trust until a beneficiary attains an age, beyond majority. If the will is inadequately drafted, it may fail to achieve the testator’s true intention. 

​As the legal industry becomes increasingly digitized, will-writing has emerged as a popular target for disruption. This centuries-old tradition of dictating how estate assets are to be distributed to beneficiaries through careful and bespoke drafting is now giving way to online automated document generation.

*Updated 21 February 2019

​Singapore's financial regulatory agency – the Monetary Authority of Singapore ("MAS") – released "A Guide to Digital Token Offerings" (the "Guide") on 30 November 2018.
 
The Guide is the primary piece of regulatory guidance by the MAS that focuses on the application of Singapore's existing financial regulatory framework to digital token issuance (in certain contexts, digital token issuances may be referred to as "initial coin offerings" or "ICOs").
 
The Guide follows MAS's earlier clarification on 01 August 2017 that securities laws apply equally to digital tokens that constitute products regulated by securities laws, and an earlier and less comprehensive version of the Guide released on 14 November 2017.
 
Notably, the Guide contains eleven (11) case studies setting out various scenarios in which tokens are offered by companies, and how securities laws may apply in each. This comprehensive analysis offered by the MAS provides much-needed confirmation on how organizations ought to proceed when issuing digital tokens.
 
This article highlights some of the key clarifications provided by the Guide.

​In the administration of an estate, disputes may arise between the executor and the beneficiaries. While some disputes may be resolved by agreements between the parties, others may result in the delay of the administration of the estate. If an agreement cannot be reached and the dispute persists, the question is if it is appropriate for an executor of an estate to commence an action seeking orders or directions from the court to finalise the administration of the estate.

Y, a mother of five children, added one of her children X’s name into her sole named bank account, thus converting the account into a joint account (“the Joint Account”).
 
When Y added X’s name into her sole named bank account, the Authorisation Form contained this clause:
 
“In the event of death, the rule of survivorship shall apply to the Joint Account and the Bank shall be authorised to dispose of the balance in the Joint Account as the property of or to the order of the survivor(s)…”
 
Y subsequently passed away intestate. The main issue arising from this fact scenario was whether, upon the death of Y, the monies in the joint account belonged to the Estate of Y or to X by the right of survivorship.

A and B were appointed as executors and trustees of the deceased’s will. They were also 2 of the beneficiaries of the deceased‘s will. Upon the deceased’s passing, A attempted to obtain probate in respect to the estate. For several months after the deceased’s passing, A made several requests to B to make a joint application for probate. However, these attempts were futile. Instead, B objected to A dealing with the assets and gave notice to A not to deal with any matters pertaining to the estate without B’s consent. 

​On 02 August 2018, the Singapore Personal Data Protection Commission (the "Commission") released its decision in Re: Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 4436 [2018] SGPDPC 18 ("Re: MCST 4436").
 
In this case, the Commission turned its attention to a conflict between section 21(3) of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (the "PDPA"), which prohibits organizations from releasing personal data under certain circumstances notwithstanding the individual's general right of access to their own personal data, and section 47 of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act ("BMSMA"), which requires management corporations to supply information to certain classes of persons.