Author: Ronald JJ Wong

Posted on

Article: Employment contracts bonds & penalty clauses; refusing employees’ resignation

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

At BCS legal clinic yesterday, 2 separate foreign applicants came distressed, seeking legal advice on how they can quit their job. They were overworked and exploited. They had thought that if they quit their job, they’d have to pay a hefty sum of money for terminating their employment contract or agreement before a purported “bond” period. When they left the legal clinic, they were uplifted and relieved because they found out from us that they could leave their unhealthy jobs without penal consequences.

Continue reading “Article: Employment contracts bonds & penalty clauses; refusing employees’ resignation”

Posted on

Case Update: SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd [2015] SGCA 71 – Court of Appeal allows appeal on burden of proof

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Significance: Court of Appeal allowed appeal on the basis that the respondent failed to discharge its burden of proof by running its ‘minimal case’ and adducing insufficient evidence to prove that it had paid its debts.

Comment: It’s important for litigants to be clear about who bears the legal burden of proving which material facts. This would be based on the pleadings, which are therefore important legal documents that must be properly drafted. Evident from this case, even Supreme Court judges can differ in their construction of pleadings to determine such fundamental concepts as burden of proof. Such analyses must be done early in the litigation so that the appropriate and effective litigation strategy can be adopted. Running risky strategies like no case to answer or a “minimal case” approach must be well supported by robust legal analysis and research.

Continue reading “Case Update: SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd [2015] SGCA 71 – Court of Appeal allows appeal on burden of proof”

Posted on

Case Update: Bunge SA v Indian Bank [2015] SGHC 330 – Singapore High Court stayed local proceedings for India Court proceedings on basis of forum non conveniens

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

The court granted a stay of proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens applying the principles in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 (“Spiliada”), adopted in the Singapore courts: Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377, CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2008] 4 SLR(R) 543 and JIO Minerals FZC v Mineral Enterprises Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 391.

Continue reading “Case Update: Bunge SA v Indian Bank [2015] SGHC 330 – Singapore High Court stayed local proceedings for India Court proceedings on basis of forum non conveniens”

Posted on

Case Update: Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd [2015] SGHC 322 – Scheme of Arrangement, Restraint Order

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Significance: High Court holds that an order restraining further proceedings in any action or proceeding against a company may be granted under s 210(10) even if no application had yet been made under s 210(1) for a meeting of creditors or members, provided there was a proposal of a compromise or arrangement sufficiently detailed as to indicate that was something definitive that could be put to the creditors shortly, and the application was made bona fides.

Continue reading “Case Update: Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd [2015] SGHC 322 – Scheme of Arrangement, Restraint Order”