Category: Law

Posted on

Legislative Update: Consultation & Proposed Amendments to PDPA in view of technological advancements and data security issues

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

The Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) came into effect on 1 July 2014, and was developed with reference to international frameworks, namely the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (“OECD Guidelines”) and the APEC Privacy Framework, and data protection laws of jurisdictions such as the European Union, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

In view of technological advances and global developments, such as Big Data, cybersecurity and cyberterrorism, Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) is considering other possible bases for collecting, using and disclosing personal data under the PDPA, as well as the need for mandatory data breach notifications to PDPC and affected individuals under the PDPA. The PDPC is also cognisant that there may be instances where consent is not desirable or appropriate, such as for detection of fraud or security threats.

The PDPC is therefore considering 2 main amendments to the PDPA:

  1. enhanced framework for the collection, use and disclosure of personal data (the “Enhanced Framework”); and
  2. mandatory data breach notification framework.

Continue reading “Legislative Update: Consultation & Proposed Amendments to PDPA in view of technological advancements and data security issues”

Posted on

Case Update: Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 45 – landmark decision on patent law

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 45

Significance: Landmark Singapore Court of Appeal decision on issues in patent law not previously considered before by the Singapore courts. The case involved two large pharmaceutical companies. These issues relate to the protection of subsequent medical uses of known substances and the validity of “Swiss-style” claims under the Patents Act. Warner-Lambert Company LLC’s appeal failed in this case. It tried to apply to amend its patent which was alleged to be invalid for claiming a monopoly over methods of treatment of the human or animal body, something impermissible under Singapore’s patent law as section 16(2) of the Patents Act provides: “An invention of a method of treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy or of diagnosis practised on the human or animal body shall not be taken to be capable of industrial application.” The Court upheld the trial judge’s findings that the amendments, if granted, would extend the scope of protection of the patent and that there had been undue delay by Warner-Lambert in seeking the amendments which warranted the exercise of the court’s discretion to disallow the amendments.

Posted on

MAS clarifies approach to ICO or token sales

On 1 August 2017, MAS issued a press release clarifying its approach to initial coin or token offerings (ICO) or token issuance or sales. This note provides some comments on MAS’ clarification. It is of significant interest because there have been several ICOs conducted in Singapore recently, and has thus attracted interest in prospective issuers looking to raise funds by way of ICO. This comes shortly after the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that certain ICOs would amount to “securities”.

Continue reading “MAS clarifies approach to ICO or token sales”

Posted on

Case Update: Law Society of Singapore v Sum Chong Mun [2017] SGHC 80 – Court disciplines lawyers for LPA improper witnessing

Law Society of Singapore v Sum Chong Mun [2017] SGHC 80

Significance: High Court of Three Judges reprimands two lawyers with regard to one of them signing as certificate issuer / witness of a lasting power of attorney (LPA) without actually witnessing the donor signing the document.

Continue reading “Case Update: Law Society of Singapore v Sum Chong Mun [2017] SGHC 80 – Court disciplines lawyers for LPA improper witnessing”

Posted on

Case Update: Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v DealStreetAsia Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 74 – pre-action interrogatories and pre-action discovery allowed

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v DealStreetAsia Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 74

Significance: Singapore High Court allows pre-action interrogatories and pre-action discovery under Order 26A and Order 24 of the Rules of Court. The Court found that it was just and necessary in all the circumstances to grant the pre-action disclosure sought by the plaintiff; it was held to be entitled to a disclosure of facts sufficient to give it a reasonable basis upon which to form a view on whether it can plead a viable case (in this case of malicious falsehood). However, the Court disallowed pre-actiion interrogatories and discovery for information regarding certain third parties who were alleged sources of information regarding an allegedly maliciously false news article on a website. The Court found that there was insufficient basis for a real possibility that the plaintiff would bring a claim against these third parties in Singapore for malicious falsehood (a Singapore nexus being required).

Posted on

Case Update: Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte Ltd v Goh Pui Kiat [2017] SGHC 72 – Successful Claim for Breach of Confidentiality and Conspiracy to Injure by Unlawful Means

Significance: Singapore High Court held that former director, a aesthetic doctor, breached obligations of confidentiality and conspired with intent to injure the former company (a medical clinic) by unlawful means. The Court held that the damages payable would be the loss computed based on the profits to the new company/clinic made from the diversion of patients and expedited by the use of the confidential information. The Court made a fair and reasonable estimate that the diversion of patients would have taken place within 6 months without the use of the confidential information, and so computed the loss based on such timeline.

Posted on

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”