Law. Faith. Justice. Community. Culture.
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”
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.
Can the use of a competitor’s name in your Google ad words amount to intellectual property / trademark infringement and passing off?
Maybe.
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”
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 “IP questions about rebranding Twitter to “X” “
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”
In this decision by the Appellate Division (AD) of the Singapore High Court, the AD overturned the trial judge’s decision to award indemnity costs based on an Offer to Settle (OTS).
In a recent decision by Dedar Singh Gill J, the Judge gave a caution to litigants and their lawyers against pleading causes of action (COA) or claims which are superfluous.
Continue reading “Case: Singapore High Court cautions against pleading superfluous causes of action or claims”
Significance: The General Division of the High Court of Singapore (per Goh Yihan JC as he then was) laid down a legal framework adapted from that in Ochroid Trading* (in which the Singapore Court of Appeal established the framework for illegality in claims in contract and recovery in restitution) for determining whether to not enforce a trust for illegality (see [80]).
Lau Sheng Jan Alistair v Lau Cheok Joo Richard [2023] SGHC 196
* Ochroid Trading Ltd and another v Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) and another [2018] 1 SLR 363