Case Update: TNL v TNK [2017] SGCA 15 – Division of Matrimonial Assets in Long Single Income Marriages

In TNL v TNK [2017] SGCA 15, the Court of Appeal held that the structured approach towards the division of matrimonial assets set out in ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (“the ANJ approach”) should not be applied to marriages where one spouse was the sole income earner and the other played the role of homemaker (“Single-Income Marriages”).

The ANJ approach tended to unduly favour the working spouse over the non-working spouse. This was because financial contributions were given recognition under both the first and second steps of the ANJ approach. On the other side of the equation, this meant that the non-working spouse was, in this sense, doubly (and severely) disadvantaged.
Generally, a 50:50 division of the matrimonial assets is applied to long Single-Income Marriages unless there are facts which warranted a different division.

On the issue of costs of the appeal, the Court of Appeal made no order as to costs as this was a cross-appeal situation in which both parties had been partially successful. The Court of Appeal noted that in the context of matrimonial appeals, there was a clear interest in encouraging the parties to move on to face the future instead of re-fighting old battles. Therefore, generally, appeals would not be sympathetically received where the result was a potential adjustment of the sums awarded below that worked out to less than ten% thereof. Even where such appeals were allowed because the court had established that there was an error of principle, costs might be awarded against the successful party if the court was satisfied that the appeal was a disproportionate imposition on the unsuccessful party.

The Court of Appeal also observed that regardless of the approach our courts had taken in the past, unsuccessful appellants in matrimonial appeals in the future should expect to have costs awarded against them. This remained subject, of course, to the overall justice of the case. Additionally, costs might also be awarded on an issues basis against a nit-picking appellant who raised unmeritorious issues on appeal.

From Supreme Court Note: TNL v TNK [2017] SGCA 15 (division of matrimonial assets, costs in matrimonial appeals) (4 April 2017).

March 29, 2017July 21, 2017

Case Update: ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others [2017] SGCA 20 – Court of Appeal awards loss of genetic affinity claim for wrongful fertilisation (IVF mix up) case

Significance

The Singapore Court of Appeal awarded a loss of genetic affinity head of claim in a negligence tort suit for a case of wrongful fertilisation (IVF mix up). This is a novel unprecedented head of claim (possibly worldwide). Although the Court rejected the claim for upkeep costs of the child on public policy grounds, it decided to peg the loss of genetic affinity damages to a percentage of the upkeep costs. Summary of the decision here.

Continue reading “Case Update: ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others [2017] SGCA 20 – Court of Appeal awards loss of genetic affinity claim for wrongful fertilisation (IVF mix up) case”

March 29, 2017

Case Update: Re Executive Coach International Pte. Ltd. [2017] SGPDPC 3

In this case, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) issued a warning to the organisation Executive Coach International Pte. Ltd. which provides life and executive coaching services to individual and corporate clients for breaching the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).

The organisation’s director disclosed an ex-employee’s personal history (her past drug problem and issue with infidelity in her amorous relationship) in a WhatsApp group chat comprising the ex-employee and the organisation’s other staff and volunteer trainees without the ex-employee’s consent and without notifying her of the purposes for the disclosure.

The organisation argued that the director had disclosed the personal data in his personal capacity. However, the PDPC found that the disclosure of personal data was made in the context of a dispute arising from the unamicable departure of the complainant from the organisation’s employment. The PDPC found that the director of the organisation was acting in the course of his employment as a director when he disclosed the complainant’s personal data. Therefore he cannot said to be acting in his personal capacity.

March 15, 2017July 21, 2017

Employment Act mandatory requirements grace period ends 31 March

The Employment Act was amended in 2015 to make it mandatory that employees under the Act are provided with itemised payslips and key employment terms (KETs) in writing, and employers are to keep records of employees. A breach of these mandatory requirements is considered a civil breach which will attract administrative financial penalties / fines.

Continue reading “Employment Act mandatory requirements grace period ends 31 March”

March 13, 2017March 14, 2017

PDPC developing local certification for Data Protection Officers (DPO)

The Straits Times reported today that the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC), which is the government body under the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) responsible for enforcing Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA), announced that it is developing a local certification programme for data protection officers (DPOs).

Under the PDPA, all organisations which come under the scope of the Act are mandated to appoint data protection officers (DPOs). These officers may be employees or external consultants. The DPO has to ensure that the organisation is compliant with the PDPA.

Based on the PDPC’s survey of 1,513 organisations in March and June 2016, only about 40% of Singapore organisations have a DPO on their payroll.

While there is a foreign certification for data protection issued by the US-based International Association of Privacy Professionals, training for which is conducted by Straits Interactive, the PDPC hopes that the local certification will encourage more people to take up DPO certification, and give more recognition to the role of DPO. ST reports that “Experts estimate that there will be more than 10,000 DPO jobs here over the next three years.”

It is good for organisations to review their PDPA compliance and ensure they have a DPO appointed.

For individuals / employees / job-hunters, it is good to consider obtaining such DPO certification to boost one’s skill sets and qualification to meet the likely growing demand for DPO positions in the years to come.

For more information on PDPA compliance, visit http://www.singaporepdpa.com.

March 10, 2017August 18, 2017

Legislative Update: Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act Amendment

Significance

The Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Singapore Parliament on 9 March 2017. The Bill seeks to amend the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act (Cap. 50A) to introduce new criminal offences on computer offences and cybercrimes. This is especially pertinent given the rising number and extent of cybercrimes today. Just last month (February 2017), the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) system was hacked into and the personal data of many SAF service personnel were stolen: see reports on Today Online, Channel NewsAsia, Straits Times. Do note that the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) does not apply to MINDEF as it is a public body.

Continue reading “Legislative Update: Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act Amendment”

March 1, 2017July 21, 2017

Legislative Update: Amendments to Corporate Insolvency Laws: AML, Cross-Border, AGM timelines & more

The Companies (Amendment) Bill was introduced in Parliament yesterday (28 February 2017) to amend the Companies Act (the Act) on several significant matters.

Continue reading “Legislative Update: Amendments to Corporate Insolvency Laws: AML, Cross-Border, AGM timelines & more”

February 24, 2017

Case Update: Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Case Summary: Bigfoot Internet Ventures Pte Ltd v Apple Inc. [2017] SGIPOS 4 – trade mark revocation dispute involving online post-sale upgrades and software updates

Significance: the Registrar of Trade Marks considered evidence of online post-sale upgrades and software updates to determine that the “Sherlock” trade mark registered by Apple Inc. was not put to genuine use during the relevant 5-year period after the “Sherlock” search tool and trade mark was phased out.

Apple Inc. needed to provide sufficient evidence to persuade the Registrar that the “Sherlock” trade mark was used within the relevant 5-year period, notwithstanding indications that the “Sherlock” search tool in Mac OS had been phased out. Thus, because there was no evidence that there were downloads of the online updates by Singapore users in the relevant 5-year period, the Registrar was not persuaded that the “Sherlock” trade mark was put to genuine use during that time. The Registrar thus granted the application for revocation of the trade mark as at date of the application.

February 17, 2017July 21, 2017

Case Update: Goh Lay Khim and others v Isabel Redrup Agency Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 11 – defamation

Significance

Five-member Singapore Court of Appeal considered the law on absolute privilege, qualified privilege, in the context of defamation made in the form of complaints to law enforcement or prosecuting authorities e.g. police and regulatory bodies. The Court of Appeal laid down the law that gratuitous complaints to law enforcement or prosecuting authorities, should only be protected by qualified privilege, which can be defeated by malice, and not absolute privilege: see [77]-[78].

Continue reading “Case Update: Goh Lay Khim and others v Isabel Redrup Agency Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 11 – defamation”

January 26, 2017

Case Update: Ong Ghee Soon Kevin V Ho Yong Chong [2016] SGHC 277 – Choice of Law and Non-Contractual Obligations

Significance: the Singapore High Court (coram: Belinda Ang J) commented obiter dicta on the approach which the Singapore courts will likely take on the applicable law in determining non-contractual obligations e.g. tortious liability and the conflict of laws doctrine renvoi, i.e. whether the reference to a foreign law includes the foreign law’s choice of law rules or not.

In sum, the Court opined that there is large support for the view that the applicable law be the contractually chosen law, which would govern contractual obligations. This approach gives weight to the party’s autonomy in their contractual choice.

As regards renvoi, the Court opined that a case-by-case approach to deciding the issue is uncertain. As for contract-related matters, the approach would likely be that reference to a foreign law only includes the domestic law of the foreign law and not also the choice of law rules. (If the reference includes the foreign choice of law rule, there could be a double renvoi where the choice of law might point to a third set of laws or back to Singapore law).