Significant Singapore Court of Appeal decision clarifying the law of confidence:  Lim Suk Ling Priscilla v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd [2024] SGCA 16

Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies the law on breach of confidence, when wrongful gain and wrongful loss damages may be claimed for same or different sets of information, and pleadings for such claims.

Continue reading “Significant Singapore Court of Appeal decision clarifying the law of confidence:  Lim Suk Ling Priscilla v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd [2024] SGCA 16”

Singapore High Court dismisses trade mark infringement and passing off claim in context of internet keyword advertising: East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 102

Can the use of a competitor’s name in your Google ad words amount to intellectual property / trademark infringement and passing off?

Maybe.

Continue reading “Singapore High Court dismisses trade mark infringement and passing off claim in context of internet keyword advertising: East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 102”

Case: Singapore High Court’s observations on application of s 438 of IRDA

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”

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.

Continue reading “Case: Singapore High Court considers when a consent court order may be set aside, distinguishing contractual, uncontested, procedural, and substantive consent orders”

Case: Court holds director-employee liable for mismanaging closure of businesses

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”

Case: Singapore High Court lays down framework for determining whether to not enforce a trust for illegality

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

Continue reading “Case: Singapore High Court lays down framework for determining whether to not enforce a trust for illegality”

Case: Singapore High Court holds that crypto assets are things in action which can be subject to a trust; orders constructive trust over stolen digital assets USDT

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.

Continue reading “Case: Singapore High Court holds that crypto assets are things in action which can be subject to a trust; orders constructive trust over stolen digital assets USDT”