Significance: Singapore High Court holds a person who assumed responsibility over the well-being and financial affairs of another person who lacks mental capacity to be a fiduciary and imposed an equitable lien over a HDB flat purchased with monies taken from the person lacking mental capacity.
If you found out that your employee or director has been receiving bribes or making secret profits, what civil legal recourse do you have? Or what if your employee or director has been paying bribes, what civil liability would you face? This is apart from any criminal charges or liability for corruption.
SICC decision in B2C2 v Quoine is groundbreaking. A few comments:
1. Cryptocurrency is deemed akin to property which can be held on trust. Significance: crypto assets will be ringfenced if trustee becomes insolvent.
2. Cryptocurrency exchange platform (or any other type of digital exchange) must expressly contract for the right to reverse trades in certain scenarios.
3. In determining the application of the legal doctrine of unilateral and common mistake, the court considered the knowledge and intent of the programmer of the trading algorithm—whether the algo was intended to be opportunistic of mistakes. Strangely, it’s possible that if a human was the one who executed the same trades, the doctrine may apply to deny the plaintiff’s claim.
4. Significance: legal doctrine is being bent by algorithm and technology. This decision may pave the approach for application of doctrine to scenarios of automated technology replacing human actors.
5. Remedy in this case was not return of the cryptocurrency because of the substantial value increase since the events. Instead damages were to be assessed. This may matter if the defendant is cash light.
Significance: Singapore High Court sets aside a trust on grounds of misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence and unconscionability, construes scope of living trust to include the plaintiff’s interest under a will. The Court of Appeal (“CA“) upheld the decision but disagreed with the trial judge on certain findings. The CA also rejected the broad doctrine of unconscionability as being too uncertain and subjective, affirming instead the narrow doctrine.
Continue reading “Case Update: BOM v BOK  SGCA 83; BOK v BOL  SGHC 316 – Court sets aside trust on grounds of misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence and unconscionability, construes scope of living trust”
Significance: Singapore High Court (Coram: Chua Lee Ming J) held that AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors  3 WLR 1367 (“AIB”) should be followed in that but-for causation should be established by the claimant to obtain equitable compensation where there has been a breach of trust.
Case Update: HSBC Trustee (Singapore) Limited v Carolyn Fong Wai Lyn  SGHC 31
Significance: Singapore High Court interprets will holistically (as opposed to a clause-specific construction), orders estate’s properties to be mortgaged to raise funds for professional trustees’ fees and costs, and refuses to order that trustees be discharged as Court found it was not in the interests of beneficiaries given the ongoing litigation in relation to the estate.
What are forced heirship laws?
Under forced heirship laws, a person is not free to dictate who will inherit their estate. Instead, forced heirship laws require a deceased person’s estate to pass to one or more family members. However, forced heirship laws may be mitigated through certain legal means.