Law. Faith. Justice. Community. Culture.
ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin and others [2023] SGHC 199
Significant decision: The General Division of the High Court of Singapore (per curiam Philip Jeyaretnam J) has held that crypto assets are things or choses in action, and thus capable of being subject to a trust.
Interactive Digital Finance Ltd v Credit Suisse AG [2023] SGHC 198
Significance: Chua Lee Ming J held that under the 2021 Rules of Court (“ROC”), the court has the power to direct at a Case Conference, disclosure under the equivalent of a Notice to Produce procedure under the 2014 ROC.
Siemens Industry Software Inc. (formerly known as Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc) v Inzign Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 50
Employee installed unauthorised version of Siemens’ commercial software on a company laptop for his work without permission. Siemens sued the company for copyright infringement. Court held the company vicariously liable for the employee’s infringement but not directly or primarily liable.
The legal lessons from Elon Musk’s turnaround in buying Twitter:
Musk signed the merger agreement before his advisors conducted due diligence.
Continue reading “Legal lessons from Elon Musk’s turnaround in buying Twitter”
Wang Aifeng v Sunmax Global Capital Fund 1 Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 271
The Court (per Goh Yihan JC) in this decision considered the principles for granting permission to continue or commence legal action against a bankrupt individual under s 327(1)(c)(ii), IRDA.
As a lawyer, I’ve worked with clients from startup founders to CEOs and Board Directors of listed companies. I get questions from time to time about their legal problems and shortfalls in their legal documentation. Just like it’s prudent to have annual medical check-ups on our health, businesses would do well to have regular legal health diagnostics.
This article explains the general legal issues and legal documents, contracts, and agreements which a business can expect to encounter through its lifecycle from founding to seed, from maturity to liquidation.
Interesting case: Kallivalap Praveen Nair v Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 261
Ex-employee claimed that employer GSK breached its employment contract by failing to follow its own employment policies.
Significance: in Adip Mittal v Offshore Holding Company Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 239, the General Division of the Singapore High Court (coram Goh Yihan JC) considered, in the first reported decision on this issue, the legal principles applicable to s 124(1)(b) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA), which allows directors to wind up companies. Prior to the IRDA, directors had no legal standing to wind up companies.
Continue reading “Directors winding up companies under Singapore’s IRDA”
Significance: the General Division of the Singapore High Court in JSD Corp Pte Ltd v Tri-Line Express Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 227 (coram: Goh Yihan JC) clarified that a claimant’s intention to repair will be a very significant factor in the court’s assessment on whether to grant cost of cure damages in claims of breach of contract or negligent damage to property.
Continue reading “SGHC on intention to repair in cost of cure damages claims”
Powercom Yuraku Pte Ltd v Sunpower Semiconductor Ltd [2022] SGHC 211
Significance: This is the first time the Singapore court explained the legal basis on which: (a) a judgment granted in default of defence can be set aside in part; and (b) declarations can be made in default of defence or on admission or by consent. Goh Yihan JC explains in this judgment.