Case Update: Wee Shuo Woon v HT S.R. L. [2017] SGCA 23 – Court of Appeal holds confidential and privileged information does not lose confidentiality and privilege from being released on the Internet from hacking

Wee Shuo Woon v HT S.R. L. [2017] SGCA 23

Significance: The Court of Appeal holds that confidential and privileged information does not lose its confidential nature through being released on the Internet from hacking.

Continue reading “Case Update: Wee Shuo Woon v HT S.R. L. [2017] SGCA 23 – Court of Appeal holds confidential and privileged information does not lose confidentiality and privilege from being released on the Internet from hacking”

Case Update: La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG [2016] SGHC 3 – SGHC orders pre-action discovery against banks to disclose customer account information

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).

Continue reading “Case Update: La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG [2016] SGHC 3 – SGHC orders pre-action discovery against banks to disclose customer account information”

Case Update: HT S.R.L. v Wee Shuo Woon [2016] SGHC 15 – clarifying confidentiality, privilege & admissibility

HT S.R.L. v Wee Shuo Woon [2016] SGHC 15

Significance: Singapore High Court holds that privileged & confidential emails obtained by a hacker and leaked onto WikiLeaks retain the protection of privilege & confidentiality. Court ordered for emails to be expunged from the defendant’s affidavits.

Continue reading “Case Update: HT S.R.L. v Wee Shuo Woon [2016] SGHC 15 – clarifying confidentiality, privilege & admissibility”

Case Update: SIC College of Business and Technology Pte Ltd v Yeo Poh Siah and others [2016] SGCA 5 – CA orders retrial as evidence was wrongly rejected; costs against non-party; security for costs

SIC College of Business and Technology Pte Ltd v Yeo Poh Siah and others [2016] SGCA 5

Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal orders retrial of an action because the trial judge had wrongly rejected certain key evidence from being admitted for purposes of the counterclaim because it was brought for purposes of the main claim, which had been dismissed.

Significance (2): Singapore Court of Appeal opined that order for security for costs against plaintiff company may not have been justifiable.

Significance (3): Singapore Court of Appeal held that lower court’s order for non-party to pay costs of the proceedings was wrong.

Court Room Trial of Four British Seamen at Canton

Continue reading “Case Update: SIC College of Business and Technology Pte Ltd v Yeo Poh Siah and others [2016] SGCA 5 – CA orders retrial as evidence was wrongly rejected; costs against non-party; security for costs”

Case Update: SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd [2015] SGCA 71 – Court of Appeal allows appeal on burden of proof

Significance: Court of Appeal allowed appeal on the basis that the respondent failed to discharge its burden of proof by running its ‘minimal case’ and adducing insufficient evidence to prove that it had paid its debts.

Comment: It’s important for litigants to be clear about who bears the legal burden of proving which material facts. This would be based on the pleadings, which are therefore important legal documents that must be properly drafted. Evident from this case, even Supreme Court judges can differ in their construction of pleadings to determine such fundamental concepts as burden of proof. Such analyses must be done early in the litigation so that the appropriate and effective litigation strategy can be adopted. Running risky strategies like no case to answer or a “minimal case” approach must be well supported by robust legal analysis and research.

Continue reading “Case Update: SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd [2015] SGCA 71 – Court of Appeal allows appeal on burden of proof”