In this decision of ATT Systems (S’pore) Pte Ltd and another v Centricore (S) Pte Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 13, the Singapore High Court held, among other things, that the general non-compete obligations were valid and enforceable against the former employees. The Court found that the defendants had breached confidentiality obligations, non-compete and loyalty obligations, induced breaches of contract by the former employees, and engaged in a conspiracy to cause damage by such means.
Contrasting Web Scraping Cases in SG and US
A recent US 11th Circuit Court decision, Compulife Software, Inc. v. Newman dealt with a case of web scraping which can be contrasted against the SG High Court decision in PropertyGuru Pte Ltd v. 99 Pte Ltd, highlighting the differing legislative and judicial approaches to intellectual property protection against web scraping.
Continue reading “Contrasting Web Scraping Cases in SG and US “
Case: Singapore High Court considers when a consent court order may be set aside, distinguishing contractual, uncontested, procedural, and substantive consent orders
In Blomberg, Johan Daniel v Khan Zhi Yan [2023] SGHC 238, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore (per See Kee Oon J) considered the legal principles on when a consent order may be set aside: [38]-[45].
He distinguished between (a) a “contractual consent order” and an “uncontested consent order”; and (b) a “procedural consent order” and a “substantive consent order”.
In sum, contractual consent orders can only be interfered with on grounds of contract law vitiating factors. The court has no residual discretion to set aside or not enforce substantive contractual consent orders.
IP questions about rebranding Twitter to “X”
What is Elon Musk doing with this rebranding?
He has renamed Twitter as “X”. That also means its logo will be changed to “X”. And all branding collateral, eg platform & website design and images, will be modified to be consistent with the new brand style.
Continue reading “IP questions about rebranding Twitter to “X” “
Singapore High Court held employer not obliged to comply with its own employment policies: Kallivalap Praveen Nair v Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 261
Interesting case: Kallivalap Praveen Nair v Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 261
Ex-employee claimed that employer GSK breached its employment contract by failing to follow its own employment policies.
Directors winding up companies under Singapore’s IRDA
Significance: in Adip Mittal v Offshore Holding Company Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 239, the General Division of the Singapore High Court (coram Goh Yihan JC) considered, in the first reported decision on this issue, the legal principles applicable to s 124(1)(b) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA), which allows directors to wind up companies. Prior to the IRDA, directors had no legal standing to wind up companies.
Continue reading “Directors winding up companies under Singapore’s IRDA”
SGHC on intention to repair in cost of cure damages claims
Significance: the General Division of the Singapore High Court in JSD Corp Pte Ltd v Tri-Line Express Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 227 (coram: Goh Yihan JC) clarified that a claimant’s intention to repair will be a very significant factor in the court’s assessment on whether to grant cost of cure damages in claims of breach of contract or negligent damage to property.
Continue reading “SGHC on intention to repair in cost of cure damages claims”
Case: Singapore High Court grants declaratory judgment in default and varies default judgment in part
Powercom Yuraku Pte Ltd v Sunpower Semiconductor Ltd [2022] SGHC 211
Significance: This is the first time the Singapore court explained the legal basis on which: (a) a judgment granted in default of defence can be set aside in part; and (b) declarations can be made in default of defence or on admission or by consent. Goh Yihan JC explains in this judgment.
Case: [2022] SGHCR 7 – procedural considerations regarding starting a suit against estate
Maybank Singapore Limited v Personal representatives of the estate of Khoo Gek Hwa Christina, deceased [2022] SGHCR 7
Significance: The Assistant Registrar set out practical guidance on the procedure for starting a suit against a deceased’s estate at [98]:
Case: POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng [2022] SGHC(A) 2 – Special Purpose Vehicle assigned claims has locus standi
Significant decision by the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore: POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng [2022] SGHC(A) 2
The Court held that a special purpose vehicle (SPV) who was assigned the claims of various investors who alleged fraud has locus standi to pursue the claims.