Author: Ronald JJ Wong

Posted on

Cryptocurrency and Digital Assets Legal Disputes in Singapore

Overview of Blockchain and Crypto Disputes and Legal Issues and Cases

Our team has subject matter expertise in legal, technical, and economic aspects of blockchain-related matters, including token sales, listings, and issuances, SAFTs, real-world asset tokenisation projects, token exchanges, digital asset and on-chain tracing, crypto-related insolvency, and crypto fraud and scams. As Singapore lawyers, we’ve handled cryptocurrency claims involving persons from different jurisdictions/countries and cross-border elements.

In this article (also accessible at Covenant Chambers’ website), we set out various legal issues, considerations and approaches regarding various types of blockchain and crypto disputes and transactions.

Continue reading “Cryptocurrency and Digital Assets Legal Disputes in Singapore”

Posted on

The Ultimate Guide to Starting and Running a Business in Singapore

All the legal, tax, operational, and strategic considerations from founding to growth stage

This article explains everything a founder, CEO, Board Director, manager, or executive would typically encounter in starting and running a business.

Beyond mere information, we share practical guidance and insights from experience.

Continue reading “The Ultimate Guide to Starting and Running a Business in Singapore”

Posted on

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”

Posted on

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”

Posted on

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”

Posted on

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”

Posted on

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”