Law. Faith. Justice. Community. Culture.
In this significant judgment, the Honourable Goh Yihan J proffers observations about the principles on the application of s 438 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA).
S 438 empowers the Court to make orders in respect of undervalue transactions which are for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors or otherwise prejudicing the interests of any creditor.
Continue reading “Case: Singapore High Court’s observations on application of s 438 of IRDA”
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.
Continue reading “IP questions about rebranding Twitter to “X” “
Wee Ewe Seng Patrick John v True Yoga Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC(A) 26
Significance: A director or employee can be held liable for mismanaging the closure of a business, i.e., the manner of closing it down. They can be liable for causing damage to the brand equity of a company or group of companies.
Continue reading “Case: Court holds director-employee liable for mismanaging closure of businesses”
In this decision by the Appellate Division (AD) of the Singapore High Court, the AD overturned the trial judge’s decision to award indemnity costs based on an Offer to Settle (OTS).
In a recent decision by Dedar Singh Gill J, the Judge gave a caution to litigants and their lawyers against pleading causes of action (COA) or claims which are superfluous.
Continue reading “Case: Singapore High Court cautions against pleading superfluous causes of action or claims”
Significance: The General Division of the High Court of Singapore (per Goh Yihan JC as he then was) laid down a legal framework adapted from that in Ochroid Trading* (in which the Singapore Court of Appeal established the framework for illegality in claims in contract and recovery in restitution) for determining whether to not enforce a trust for illegality (see [80]).
Lau Sheng Jan Alistair v Lau Cheok Joo Richard [2023] SGHC 196
* Ochroid Trading Ltd and another v Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) and another [2018] 1 SLR 363
ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin and others [2023] SGHC 199
Significant decision: The General Division of the High Court of Singapore (per curiam Philip Jeyaretnam J) has held that crypto assets are things or choses in action, and thus capable of being subject to a trust.
Interactive Digital Finance Ltd v Credit Suisse AG [2023] SGHC 198
Significance: Chua Lee Ming J held that under the 2021 Rules of Court (“ROC”), the court has the power to direct at a Case Conference, disclosure under the equivalent of a Notice to Produce procedure under the 2014 ROC.
Siemens Industry Software Inc. (formerly known as Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc) v Inzign Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 50
Employee installed unauthorised version of Siemens’ commercial software on a company laptop for his work without permission. Siemens sued the company for copyright infringement. Court held the company vicariously liable for the employee’s infringement but not directly or primarily liable.