Category: Law

Posted on

MAS clarifies approach to ICO or token sales

On 1 August 2017, MAS issued a press release clarifying its approach to initial coin or token offerings (ICO) or token issuance or sales. This note provides some comments on MAS’ clarification. It is of significant interest because there have been several ICOs conducted in Singapore recently, and has thus attracted interest in prospective issuers looking to raise funds by way of ICO. This comes shortly after the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that certain ICOs would amount to “securities”.

Continue reading “MAS clarifies approach to ICO or token sales”

Posted on

Case Update: Law Society of Singapore v Sum Chong Mun [2017] SGHC 80 – Court disciplines lawyers for LPA improper witnessing

Law Society of Singapore v Sum Chong Mun [2017] SGHC 80

Significance: High Court of Three Judges reprimands two lawyers with regard to one of them signing as certificate issuer / witness of a lasting power of attorney (LPA) without actually witnessing the donor signing the document.

Continue reading “Case Update: Law Society of Singapore v Sum Chong Mun [2017] SGHC 80 – Court disciplines lawyers for LPA improper witnessing”

Posted on

Case Update: Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v DealStreetAsia Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 74 – pre-action interrogatories and pre-action discovery allowed

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v DealStreetAsia Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 74

Significance: Singapore High Court allows pre-action interrogatories and pre-action discovery under Order 26A and Order 24 of the Rules of Court. The Court found that it was just and necessary in all the circumstances to grant the pre-action disclosure sought by the plaintiff; it was held to be entitled to a disclosure of facts sufficient to give it a reasonable basis upon which to form a view on whether it can plead a viable case (in this case of malicious falsehood). However, the Court disallowed pre-actiion interrogatories and discovery for information regarding certain third parties who were alleged sources of information regarding an allegedly maliciously false news article on a website. The Court found that there was insufficient basis for a real possibility that the plaintiff would bring a claim against these third parties in Singapore for malicious falsehood (a Singapore nexus being required).

Posted on

Case Update: Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte Ltd v Goh Pui Kiat [2017] SGHC 72 – Successful Claim for Breach of Confidentiality and Conspiracy to Injure by Unlawful Means

Significance: Singapore High Court held that former director, a aesthetic doctor, breached obligations of confidentiality and conspired with intent to injure the former company (a medical clinic) by unlawful means. The Court held that the damages payable would be the loss computed based on the profits to the new company/clinic made from the diversion of patients and expedited by the use of the confidential information. The Court made a fair and reasonable estimate that the diversion of patients would have taken place within 6 months without the use of the confidential information, and so computed the loss based on such timeline.

Posted on

Case Update: Wee Shuo Woon v HT S.R. L. [2017] SGCA 23 – Court of Appeal holds confidential and privileged information does not lose confidentiality and privilege from being released on the Internet from hacking

Wee Shuo Woon v HT S.R. L. [2017] SGCA 23

Significance: The Court of Appeal holds that confidential and privileged information does not lose its confidential nature through being released on the Internet from hacking.

Continue reading “Case Update: Wee Shuo Woon v HT S.R. L. [2017] SGCA 23 – Court of Appeal holds confidential and privileged information does not lose confidentiality and privilege from being released on the Internet from hacking”

Posted on

Case Update: TNL v TNK [2017] SGCA 15 – Division of Matrimonial Assets in Long Single Income Marriages

In TNL v TNK [2017] SGCA 15, the Court of Appeal held that the structured approach towards the division of matrimonial assets set out in ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (“the ANJ approach”) should not be applied to marriages where one spouse was the sole income earner and the other played the role of homemaker (“Single-Income Marriages”). 

The ANJ approach tended to unduly favour the working spouse over the non-working spouse. This was because financial contributions were given recognition under both the first and second steps of the ANJ approach. On the other side of the equation, this meant that the non-working spouse was, in this sense, doubly (and severely) disadvantaged. 
Generally, a 50:50 division of the matrimonial assets is applied to long Single-Income Marriages unless there are facts which warranted a different division. 

On the issue of costs of the appeal, the Court of Appeal made no order as to costs as this was a cross-appeal situation in which both parties had been partially successful. The Court of Appeal noted that in the context of matrimonial appeals, there was a clear interest in encouraging the parties to move on to face the future instead of re-fighting old battles. Therefore, generally, appeals would not be sympathetically received where the result was a potential adjustment of the sums awarded below that worked out to less than ten% thereof. Even where such appeals were allowed because the court had established that there was an error of principle, costs might be awarded against the successful party if the court was satisfied that the appeal was a disproportionate imposition on the unsuccessful party.

The Court of Appeal also observed that regardless of the approach our courts had taken in the past, unsuccessful appellants in matrimonial appeals in the future should expect to have costs awarded against them. This remained subject, of course, to the overall justice of the case. Additionally, costs might also be awarded on an issues basis against a nit-picking appellant who raised unmeritorious issues on appeal.

From Supreme Court Note: TNL v TNK [2017] SGCA 15 (division of matrimonial assets, costs in matrimonial appeals) (4 April 2017). 

Posted on

Case Update: ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others [2017] SGCA 20 – Court of Appeal awards loss of genetic affinity claim for wrongful fertilisation (IVF mix up) case

Significance

The Singapore Court of Appeal awarded a loss of genetic affinity head of claim in a negligence tort suit for a case of wrongful fertilisation (IVF mix up). This is a novel unprecedented head of claim (possibly worldwide). Although the Court rejected the claim for upkeep costs of the child on public policy grounds, it decided to peg the loss of genetic affinity damages to a percentage of the upkeep costs. Summary of the decision here.

Continue reading “Case Update: ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others [2017] SGCA 20 – Court of Appeal awards loss of genetic affinity claim for wrongful fertilisation (IVF mix up) case”

Posted on

Case Update: Re Executive Coach International Pte. Ltd. [2017] SGPDPC 3

In this case, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) issued a warning to the organisation Executive Coach International Pte. Ltd. which provides life and executive coaching services to individual and corporate clients for breaching the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).

The organisation’s director disclosed an ex-employee’s personal history (her past drug problem and issue with infidelity in her amorous relationship) in a WhatsApp group chat comprising the ex-employee and the organisation’s other staff and volunteer trainees without the ex-employee’s consent and without notifying her of the purposes for the disclosure.

The organisation argued that the director had disclosed the personal data in his personal capacity. However, the PDPC found that the disclosure of personal data was made in the context of a dispute arising from the unamicable departure of the complainant from the organisation’s employment. The PDPC found that the director of the organisation was acting in the course of his employment as a director when he disclosed the complainant’s personal data. Therefore he cannot said to be acting in his personal capacity.