Law. Faith. Justice. Community. Culture.
Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies the legal and conceptual basis for awarding and quantifying damages pursuant to a breach of a lease agreement. Court held that claims for expectation and reliance losses as damages for breach of contract are mutually exclusive.
The Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill, Bill No. 11/2016 was passed on 14 March 2016. The key changes are:
(1) allowing the appointment of professional donees and deputies;
(2) better protection of individuals lacking mental capacity from abuse or exploitation by donees or deputies by expanding the grounds for a court to revoke an LPA or appointment of deputy;
(3) to clarify the protection of donees, third parties who deal with donees and purchasers claiming through the third parties where donees and third parties did not know that the LPA or power under the LPA is non-existent, revoked or suspended;
(4) improve operations of the Office of the Public Guardian which oversees the Act.
Public Prosecutor v Chua Siew Wei Kathleen [2016] SGHC 33
Significance: Singapore High Court orders retrial of criminal matter as it found that the trial judge: (1) had unfairly restricted the ambit of the prosecution’s cross-examination and impeded their ability to present their case fully; (2) had also impaired his own ability to evaluate and weigh the case presented by each side; (3) had failed to consider essential pieces of evidence in the course of arriving at his conclusion and had therefore arrived at findings which are, in all the circumstances, against the weight of the evidence.
In this book, which was based on extensive research and interviews, Gobillot declares that existing ways of leadership may become irrelevant in the light of 4 major societal trends. Leaders must shift their emphasis to fostering social engagement by valuing conversations, working on the contribution they make to the community rather than the direction they give to the community, and develop executive maturity to see mass participation as an opportunity to create value rather than a threat to their existence.
Polo/Lauren Co LP v United States Polo Association [2016] SGHC 32
Significance: Singapore High Court holds that US Polo Association’s trade mark is not so similar to Polo Lauren’s trade mark.
Continue reading “Case Update: Polo/Lauren Co LP v United States Polo Association [2016] SGHC 32”
Case Update: HSBC Trustee (Singapore) Limited v Carolyn Fong Wai Lyn [2016] 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.
In my September 2015 General Election Social Justice Petition Paper, I highlighted the problem of self-employed persons / freelancers being possibly unduly prevented from claiming Government-paid leave. I have since obtained clarification from the Government that such persons will not be prevented from claiming Government-paid maternity leave.
Continue reading “Govt-paid Maternity Leave for Self-Employed Persons”
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).
The decision was upheld on appeal by Andrew Ang SJ in Success Elegant Trading Ltd v La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd and others and another appeal [2016] 4 SLR 1392; [2016] SGHC 159.
A M Mohamud (in substitution for Mr A Mohamud (deceased)) v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11
Significance: the UK Supreme Court held that an employer was vicariously liable for its employee’s act of causing injury to a customer under the close connection test.
Comment: this decision is significant because under previous applications of the doctrine of vicarious liability, an employer will not be held liable for an employee’s acts which were on his whim and frolic, outside the course of employment, or were unauthorised acts. In this case, the Court extended the analysis of unauthorised modes of authorised acts by the employer to an irrational physical attack as falling within the authorised act of an employee’s interactions with a customer.
Continue reading “Case Update: A M Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11”
Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff’s solicitors had not been negligent in advising on the legal implications of the plaintiff proceeding with the cross-border transaction to acquire an interest in an Indonesian coal mine based on an oral undertaking given by a 3rd party to obtain a forestry licence.