Law. Faith. Justice. Community. Culture.
Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd [2016] SGCA 17
Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal holds that shareholders’ derivative actions–whether statutory or common law actions–are not available as regards companies in liquidation.
Peh Yeng Yok v Tembusu Systems Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 36
[14]: A search order is a draconian measure and will only be granted if necessary in the interests of justice. In line with this overriding principle of necessity, a plaintiff applying for a search order must show that:
(a) there is an extremely strong prima facie case;
(b) the damage that would be suffered if a search order was not granted is very serious;
(c) there is a real possibility that the defendant(s) would destroy relevant documents; and
(d) the effect of the search order would not be out of proportion to the legitimate object of the order.
See Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2006] 1 SLR(R) 901 (“Asian Corporate Services”) at [14].
Accent Delight International Ltd v Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar [2016] SGHC 40
Significance: High Court held on application of Spiliada principles and the doctrine of forum non conveniens that Singapore proceedings should not be stayed in favour of Switzerland because, among other reasons, the plaintiffs may not be able to pursue their substantive claims under Swiss law. The Court also considered that the purported disadvantages of having the dispute determined in Singapore are neutralised by having the dispute heard in the Singapore International Commercial Court.
Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies the legal and conceptual basis for awarding and quantifying damages pursuant to a breach of a lease agreement. Court held that claims for expectation and reliance losses as damages for breach of contract are mutually exclusive.
The Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill, Bill No. 11/2016 was passed on 14 March 2016. The key changes are:
(1) allowing the appointment of professional donees and deputies;
(2) better protection of individuals lacking mental capacity from abuse or exploitation by donees or deputies by expanding the grounds for a court to revoke an LPA or appointment of deputy;
(3) to clarify the protection of donees, third parties who deal with donees and purchasers claiming through the third parties where donees and third parties did not know that the LPA or power under the LPA is non-existent, revoked or suspended;
(4) improve operations of the Office of the Public Guardian which oversees the Act.
Public Prosecutor v Chua Siew Wei Kathleen [2016] SGHC 33
Significance: Singapore High Court orders retrial of criminal matter as it found that the trial judge: (1) had unfairly restricted the ambit of the prosecution’s cross-examination and impeded their ability to present their case fully; (2) had also impaired his own ability to evaluate and weigh the case presented by each side; (3) had failed to consider essential pieces of evidence in the course of arriving at his conclusion and had therefore arrived at findings which are, in all the circumstances, against the weight of the evidence.
Polo/Lauren Co LP v United States Polo Association [2016] SGHC 32
Significance: Singapore High Court holds that US Polo Association’s trade mark is not so similar to Polo Lauren’s trade mark.
Continue reading “Case Update: Polo/Lauren Co LP v United States Polo Association [2016] SGHC 32”
Case Update: HSBC Trustee (Singapore) Limited v Carolyn Fong Wai Lyn [2016] SGHC 31
Significance: Singapore High Court interprets will holistically (as opposed to a clause-specific construction), orders estate’s properties to be mortgaged to raise funds for professional trustees’ fees and costs, and refuses to order that trustees be discharged as Court found it was not in the interests of beneficiaries given the ongoing litigation in relation to the estate.
In my September 2015 General Election Social Justice Petition Paper, I highlighted the problem of self-employed persons / freelancers being possibly unduly prevented from claiming Government-paid leave. I have since obtained clarification from the Government that such persons will not be prevented from claiming Government-paid maternity leave.
Continue reading “Govt-paid Maternity Leave for Self-Employed Persons”
Significance: Singapore High Court orders banks to disclose customer account information to plaintiffs in respect of the plaintiffs’ claims against the banks’ customer in an application for pre-action discovery under O 24 r 6(5) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction (i.e. a Norwich Pharmacal order).
The decision was upheld on appeal by Andrew Ang SJ in Success Elegant Trading Ltd v La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd and others and another appeal [2016] 4 SLR 1392; [2016] SGHC 159.