Rachel joined the LSE Law School as Assistant Professor in Sep 2022. She is a private lawyer whose main research expertise and interests span three broad areas: the law of unjust enrichment and restitution, trusts and commercial equity, and agency law. She also has a special interest in corporate attribution in private law, the subject-matter of her doctorate and first monograph, Corporate Attribution in Private Law (Hart Publishing 2022). Her work has been cited with approval by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the Singapore Court of Appeal. Birksian Themes and their Impact in England and Singapore: Three Points of Divergence’ [2021] Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 350-379 (with T Liau).

The legal personality of management corporations in strata title developments in Singapore’ [2012] Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 75-79 Much of Rachel’s research is united by a central question: why, how, and when do people act for or on behalf of another in private law? In that vein, she is currently working on projects concerning the equitable doctrine of ‘fraud on a power’, powers of attorney, and termination of authority. The Court of Appeal decided that the knowledge of directors in such circumstances should not be attributed to the company. It is notable that the Court of Appeal’s view was that such conclusion should apply irrespective of whether or not there was a ‘sole actor’ in control of the company and indeed earlier authorities had moved away from the position where the concept of ‘the directing mind and will’ was of principal significance in determining a question of attribution. Further, the Court of Appeal considered that the question of ex turpi causa was irrelevant to the present case. Resulting Trusts: A Victory for Unjust Enrichment?’ (2014) 73(3) Cambridge Law Journal 500-3 (with T Liau). A Pyrrhic Victory for Unjust Enrichment in Singapore?’(2023) 86 Modern Law Review 518-535 (with T Liau)Corporate attribution is the process by which the acts and states of mind of human individuals are treated as those of a company to establish the company's rights, duties, and liabilities. But when and why are acts and states of mind attributed in private law? Looking at key questions of how companies are held accountable under private law, this book presents a succinct and accessible framework for analysing and answering corporate attribution problems in private law.

For example, what is the position where the claim is brought on behalf of the company itself, for example by a liquidator, for losses caused to the company as a result of the (former) employee or officer’s conduct? Should the knowledge or conduct of the director/employee be attributed to the company, thereby providing the director or employee with a defence to the company’s claim on the grounds of ex turpi causa– in other words that the company should be precluded from claiming as a result of its own illegality? Over the Horizon: Where Agency, Equity and Collective Sales Meet’ (2010) 28 Singapore Law Review 39-53 The general position is that knowledge and actions of a director will be attributed to the company, although questions of attribution are sensitive to the particular facts and this principle has been held not to apply in circumstances where what is in issue is the company’s knowledge of wrongdoing by a particular director. Donatio mortis causa of registered land in the Singapore High Court’ [2011] Trust Law International 145-149 A similar question came before the Supreme Court in the case of Jetivia v Bilta [2015] UKSC 23. However, unlike Stone & Rolls, which involved a claim by the company against a third party, in Bilta the defendants were the alleged wrongdoers themselves.

Four Misconceptions about Charity Law in Singapore” [2012] Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 37-54