Law. Faith. Justice. Community. Culture.
Significance: Singapore High Court held that a person who has been divorced in a foreign court and was married under Muslim Law cannot, under the present wording of the Women’s Charter and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, apply to either the civil courts or the syariah courts for financial relief post-divorce.
Today, I will be taking a leap of faith.
Yesterday was the last day of my employment with Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP.
Today, I’ll be joining a new firm Covenant Chambers LLC, as a self-employed lawyer, without fixed income, building my own legal practice, finding and relating to my own clients, serving the rich and the poor the man on the street and the SMEs, doing pro bono and paid work; I seek to pursue justice and peace with as much integrity as I can have, empathy as I can muster, and dedication I can afford.
Why did I do this? Because I sensed this to be my calling this season. I am pursuing a motivation not rooted in money but autonomy, growth and purpose as a lawyer, as an advocate and as a counsellor.
Here’s the view from my new office, and here’s to new horizons.
Hewlett-Packard Singapore (Sales) Pte Ltd v Chin Shu Hwa Corinna [2016] SGCA 19
Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal grants appeal to Hewlett-Packard who argued that a new commission remuneration metric was not ambiguous and that the scenario in question did not fall within the said metric entitling its ex-employee a substantially higher commission payment. Court clarifies and explains the principles on contra preferentem, among other things.
Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd [2016] SGCA 17
Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal holds that shareholders’ derivative actions–whether statutory or common law actions–are not available as regards companies in liquidation.
Peh Yeng Yok v Tembusu Systems Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 36
[14]: A search order is a draconian measure and will only be granted if necessary in the interests of justice. In line with this overriding principle of necessity, a plaintiff applying for a search order must show that:
(a) there is an extremely strong prima facie case;
(b) the damage that would be suffered if a search order was not granted is very serious;
(c) there is a real possibility that the defendant(s) would destroy relevant documents; and
(d) the effect of the search order would not be out of proportion to the legitimate object of the order.
See Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2006] 1 SLR(R) 901 (“Asian Corporate Services”) at [14].
Accent Delight International Ltd v Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar [2016] SGHC 40
Significance: High Court held on application of Spiliada principles and the doctrine of forum non conveniens that Singapore proceedings should not be stayed in favour of Switzerland because, among other reasons, the plaintiffs may not be able to pursue their substantive claims under Swiss law. The Court also considered that the purported disadvantages of having the dispute determined in Singapore are neutralised by having the dispute heard in the Singapore International Commercial Court.
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.
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”