In a collaboration with the Supreme Court, SMU Law students (under SMU Lexicon) are reporting on selected Court of Appeal judgments, highlighting the significant points, so as to foster greater public awareness of these cases and their implications. The summaries are available on the Supreme Court of Singapore Website, and are reproduced here on SMU Lexicon's website as well.
This case involved two trustees of a testamentary trust, both of whom alleged that they had resigned as trustees. Trusteeship is a serious appointment that comes with responsibilities. Under the Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed) (“Trustees Act”), which governs trusts in Singapore, once a person takes up a trusteeship, he cannot simply relinquish his duties at will but must do so in accordance with the law and the terms of the trust instrument.
In a new collaboration with the Supreme Court, SMU Law students (under SMU Lexicon) will pen articles on a number of issues concerning the rule of law, so as to foster greater public awareness of how cases are decided as well as the legal processes involved.
Parti Liyani was an Indonesian domestic helper who was charged with stealing up to $34,000 worth of items from then-Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong and his family. She was initially sentenced to jail, but on appeal the High Court acquitted Ms Liyani of all charges. The High Court held that the Prosecution had not provided sufficient credible evidence to support its claims. Furthermore, the Prosecution could not rebut the Defence’s allegation that Ms Liyani’s employers had an improper motive in making a police report against Ms Liyani, i.e. to prevent her from lodging a complaint to the authorities about being asked to work outside her approved place of employment.
Parties (“creditors”) who loan money to others (“debtors”) are often concerned that the debtors will be unable or unwilling to repay them. Such creditors may then enter into deeds of guarantee with third parties (“guarantors”) to secure the repayment of their loans if their debtors default on payment of the same. Unlike a contract, a deed does not require consideration to be legally enforceable. However, for a deed to be legally enforceable, several other formalities must be fulfilled. In particular, the deed must be “signed, sealed, and delivered”.
After a long day at work or school, we all want to retreat to a peaceful environment where we can truly relax. But a difficult roommate that you share an apartment with can get in the way of that. A roommate who leaves his dishes undone and rubbish uncleared is trouble enough, but what about one who secretly uses your clothes, takes your shampoo, and steals your things? Read on to find answers to the following questions
Electronic communications are omnipresent. Apart from texting our friends via apps like Telegram or WhatsApp, and discussing work through emails, we also transact using electronic means – for example, by buying items off Taobao, Shopee, or Lazada, just one of the many e-commerce platforms available.
Suppose Adam agrees verbally to purchase oranges from a supplier, Ben, for Adam’s business. Adam finds out the very next day that another supplier, Cindy, can provide those oranges at a lower cost. Being a shrewd businessman, Adam no longer wishes to purchase them from Ben. He calls up Ben to inform him of the bad news. Ben threatens to sue. Can Ben now enforce that verbal agreement with Adam? And if Ben had secretly recorded down the conversation, can it be used as evidence of the verbal agreement? These questions will all be addressed in this article. For present purposes however, our present analysis with a basic discussion of contracts.
How does one achieve financial freedom? One typical answer may be to spend below our means. Unfortunately, some of us may already be beyond the point of no return, with interest causing a seemingly-unstoppable spiral into bankruptcy.
The Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) is sometimes referred to as “Calculate, Pay or get Fined” by Singaporean employers. This is because the Central Provident Fund Act requires them to contribute to their employees’ CPF accounts or get fined for failure to do so.