Freedom of choice of occupation and academic freedom in Hong Kong

This chapter discusses two unrelated topics which are successively provided for in the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Administrative Region (HKSAR). These are the right of Hong Kong residents to a freedom of choice of occupations (art..33) and the right to academic freedom of Hong Kong's academic institutions and by implication of their academics (art.34). The first section of this chapter will focus on art.33, while the second section will focus on art.34.

Taking statutory adjudication to the next level: a proposal for review mechanism of erroneous determinations

Statutory adjudication was introduced in the security of payment legislation to quickly and fairly resolve payment disputes in the construction industry. One of the interesting features in some legislation is the availability of an express limited right of aggrieved parties to apply for review against erroneous adjudication decisions. In Singapore, the legislation has no equivalent elsewhere in that it provides for a full review mechanism of erroneous determinations considering the fact that adjudicators often have to grapple with complex issues as sheer volume of documents within a very tight timeframe. This paper discusses the various review mechanisms of erroneous adjudication determinations then asks the question as to whether an appropriately devised legislative review mechanism on the merits, should be an essential characteristic of any effective statutory adjudication scheme. The paper concludes by making the case that an appropriately designed review mechanism as proposed in the paper could be the most pragmatic and effective measure to improve the quality of adjudication outcome and increase the disputants' confidence in statutory adjudication. This paper is based upon a paper by the author which received a High Commendation in the Student Division of the Society of Construction Law Australia Brooking Prize for 2016.

An Australian study comparing the use of multiple-choice questionnaires with assignments as interim, summative law school assessment

o the author’s knowledge, this is the first Australian study to empirically compare the use of a multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) with the use of a written assignment for interim, summative law school assessment. This study also surveyed the same student sample as to what types of assessments are preferred and why. In total, 182 undergraduate property law students participated in this study. Results showed that scores for the MCQ (assessing five topics) and assignment (assessing one topic) followed a similar distribution. This indicates that an MCQ does not necessarily skew students towards higher grades than an assignment. Results also showed significant but low correlations of test scores across instruments. When asked which instrument best assessed their knowledge of property law, students expressed a strong preference for an assignment over an MCQ or examination. Comments revealed a strong belief that, because lawyers write, law schools must assess legal writing – a skill not captured by MCQs. This study is important as many Australian law schools face increasing marking loads due to higher student numbers and compulsory mid-term assessments. This article endorses the use of MCQs but only as part of a diverse suite of law school assessment.