Case Update: Lee Chen Seong Jeremy v Official Assignee [2018] SGCA 51 – Court of Appeal clarifies law on abandonment of property
Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies the law on abandonment of property. It was held that abandonment would be made out when there has been a unilateral relinquishment of a particular property, whether tangible or intangible.
Continue reading “Case Update: Lee Chen Seong Jeremy v Official Assignee [2018] SGCA 51 – Court of Appeal clarifies law on abandonment of property”Case Update: Bumi Armada Offshore Holdings Ltd and another v Tozzi Srl [2018] SGCA(I) 5 – Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies tort of inducement of breach of contract by a parent company or shareholder
Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal, hearing an appeal against a Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) decision, clarifies when the tort of inducement of breach of contract by a parent company or shareholder may apply.
Case Update: Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd v Yeo Boong Hua [2018] SGCA – Wrotham Park damages clarified
Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies the applicability and basis of Wrotham Park damages.
Case Update: Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu Ming [2018] SGHC 172 – floating governing law and jurisdiction clause held unenforceable
Significance: Singapore High Court held that a floating governing law and jurisdiction clause was invalid and unenforceable. Citing Prof Yeo Tiong Min’s Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore volume on Conflict of Laws, the Court held that if the proper law of a contract cannot be determined from a governing law clause at the time of the formation of the contract, then that clause does not satisfy as an express proper law. The Court then found that it could not sever the unenforceable governing law portion from the jurisdiction clause. The clause in the case effectively said that the governing law and jurisdiction was “laws of Singapore /or People’s Republic of China” and “Courts of Singapore /or People’s Republic of China”. It would do well for parties take proper legal advice on the validity of such important clauses, and not assume they can simply gamble this as a compromise of some sort or as some option for one party later on.
Case Update: China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation) v Wu Xiaodong [2018] SGHC 178 – Mareva Injunction in aid of foreign proceedings granted
Significance: Singapore High Court held that the Court is empowered under s 4(10) of the Civil Law Act (“CLA“) to grant a Mareva injunction (injunction to freeze assets) in aid of foreign court proceedings, subject to certain prerequisites. Notably, prior to this, there are 2 conflicting High Court decisions, and a Court of Appeal decision which did not definitively decide, on this issue. The High Court granted such a Mareva injunction in aid of Hong Kong court proceedings on the facts.
Case Update: Ricardo Leiman v Noble Resources [2018] SGHC 166 – Contractual Discretion and Legal Doctrine of Penalties
Significance: Singapore High Court held that contractual discretion in employment contract is subject to an implied term that the discretion is exercised rationally, not arbitrarily or capriciously, in good faith, and consistent with its contractual purpose. Further, the Court applied the new UK Supreme Court test for penalty clauses in Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi [2016] AC 1172 (UKSC) (“Cavendish“), observing that the clause in question is not a straightforward damages clause, hence the usefulness in applying the Cavendish test.
Shareholders Agreement Drafting Questionnaire
What is a Shareholders Agreement?
A shareholders agreement is a legal document setting out the rights and obligations of the shareholders in a company. Shareholders agreements are often used in private companies or joint ventures. Unlike the company constitution, the shareholder agreement is not mandatory under the Companies Act. The Companies Act is the main governing legislation for companies incorporated in Singapore. If there is no shareholders agreement, the relationships of shareholders as between themselves and with the company are governed by the constitution or articles of association of the company.
Continue reading “Shareholders Agreement Drafting Questionnaire”
Case Update: Tan Kok Yong Steve v Itochu Singapore Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 85 – High Court upholds 2-year non-compete clause, grants injunction
Significance: the Singapore High Court (Coram: Tan Siong Thye J) upheld a two-year restraint of trade, non-competition, clause and ordered an injunction against an ex-employee. The Court also held there was a valid agreement for a severance package which was not predicated on the employee’s compliance with the non-competition undertaking.
Case Update: first Singapore High Court case on Choice of Court Agreements Act enforces UK Court Judgment
Ermgassen & Co Ltd v Sixcap Financials Pte Ltd [2018] SGHCR 8
Significance: Singapore High Court lays down law and guidance on applications to recognise or enforce foreign judgments under the Choice of Court Agreements Act.