UVJ and others v UVH and others and another  SGCA 49: judgment here; Supreme Court case summary here.
Significance: The Court of Appeal set out the law on account of profits and causation in claim against trustees and executors of a will and estate.
The case illustrates the possible course of action which beneficiaries of an estate may be able to take in holding executors / administrators of estates or wills to account, including for delay in providing information to the beneficiaries upon request and failing to distribute assets from the estate in a timely manner without good reasons.
Continue reading “Case: UVJ and others v UVH and others and another  SGCA 49 – account of profits and causation in claim against executors of will / estate”
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.
Continue reading “Case Update: Philip Antony Jeyaretnam & Another v Kulandaivelu Malayaperumal & Another  SGHC 214”
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.
Continue reading “Article: Civil Claims and Liabilities for Payment of Bribes”
Singapore Court of Appeal (“CA“) decision in Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd  SGCA(I) 2 is groundbreaking for its analysis of contract formation through a deterministic algorithm code. Case summary here.
The majority of the CA (Jonathan Mance IJ dissenting) decided on the following key points:
When analysing mistake for contract vitiation, if a contract was formed through deterministic algorithms (i.e. it always produces the same output given the same input), it is the programmer’s state of knowledge that is relevant and to be attributed to the parties: at .
The inquiry should be whether, when programming the algorithm, the programmer was doing so with actual or constructive knowledge of the fact that the relevant offer would only ever be accepted by a party operating under a mistake and whether the programmer was acting to take advantage of such a mistake: at .
The relevant time frame within which the knowledge of a programmer or the person running the algorithm should be assessed is from the point of programming up to the point that the relevant contract was formed: at .
The CA held it was not necessary to decide whether cryptocurrency, specifically BTC, was a species of property that was capable of being held on trust. No express trust arose over the BTC in B2C2’s account as there was no certainty of intention to create a trust. The mere fact that Quoine’s assets were segregated from its customers’ could not in and of itself lead to that conclusion. On the facts, the manner in which the BTC was stored militated against the finding of a trust: at  and .
The CA did comment in obiter dicta that “[t]here may be much to commend the view that cryptocurrencies should be capable of assimilation into the general concepts of property. There are, however, difficult questions as to the type of property that is involved”: at .
Continue reading “Case Update: B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd  SGHC(I) 3; Quoine v B2C2  SGCA(I) 2 – SICC / Singapore Court of Appeal on cryptocurrency and mistake in contract formed using algorithm”
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.
Continue reading “Case Update: Winsta Holding Pte Ltd and another v Sim Poh Ping and others  SGHC 239 – Singapore High Court rules on but for causation for equitable compensation”
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.
Continue reading “Article: Forced Heirship Laws and Singapore Trusts”