Author: SMU Lexicon

Soh Chee Wen v PP [2025] 2 SLR 176 arose from the 2013 penny stocks crash, to date the “largest market manipulation case in Singapore’s history”. Mr Soh Chee Wen (“Mr Soh”) and Ms Quah Su-Ling (“Ms Quah”) were charged and convicted of being involved in a criminal conspiracy to manipulate the markets for and prices of three counters that were being traded on the Singapore Exchange. Mr Soh and Ms Quah appealed against their convictions. The Court of Appeal (“CA”) rejected Mr Soh’s and Ms Quah’s arguments that the charges were not made out and upheld the convictions. In doing so, the CA made various clarifications regarding criminal conspiracy charges under section 120B of the Penal Code.

In DMZ v DNA [2025] SGCA 52, the Court of Appeal held that a two-step inquiry applies for determining whether Article 5 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration prohibits Singapore court intervention in any given case: a) whether the application for the court’s intervention concerns a “matter” governed by the Model Law; and b) whether the intended intervention is permitted, either because the legislation does make express provision for such intervention, or if not, then because the grant of relief is warranted. The court will not seek to second-guess a procedural determination, absent express empowerment to do so under the Model Law or the International Arbitration Act 1994. The Court also made some observations regarding rules 40.1 and 40.2 of the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.

In da Silveira, Virgilio Tarrago and another v Hashstacs Pte Ltd and another [2025] SGCA(I) 3, the Court of Appeal addressed investor claims of misrepresentation against Hashstacs Pte Ltd (Hashstacs (SG)) arising from a Whitepaper and launch website for a “STACS Protocol” blockchain project. The Court dismissed the investors’ claims against Hashstacs (SG), holding that Hashtacs (SG)'s role in merely editing and uploading the Whitepaper did not make it a representor, as it never adopted the statements therein as its own. Additionally, the statements merely reflected the ambitions of the publishers, and were not representations of present fact or present intention capable of being true or false at the time they were made. Further, there is a clear distinction between enforceable contractual duties as to the future, and misrepresentations of past and present fact in the tort of deceit.

I. Executive Summary  A tenancy is “determined” (i.e. terminated) when the landlord exercises his right to “forfeit” the lease. To exercise the right of forfeiture, the landlord must first satisfy the statutory requirements under section 18(1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1886 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CLPA”). Further, if the landlord accepts any … Continue reading A revised approach to interpreting the statutory requirements for the exercise of the right of forfeiture Campbell Hospitality Pte Ltd and others v Marchmont Pte Ltd and another appeal [2025] SGHC(A) 6; [2025] 1 SLR 816

I. Executive Summary This case involves the following statutory presumptions. Section 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (2020 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) states that where an accused is in possession of more than a certain quantity of a controlled drug, he is presumed to have possessed the drug for the purpose of trafficking, unless … Continue reading Constitutionality of Presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act: Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed & 3 Ors v Attorney-General [2025] 1 SLR 1287, [2025] SGCA 40

I. Executive Summary  East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2025] SGCA 28 clarifies Singapore’s approach to trade mark infringement, particularly in the context of internet advertising.  This dispute arose when Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd (“Family Podiatry”) used Google’s advertising services (“Google Ads”) to display internet advertisements featuring the … Continue reading Trade mark infringement in the age of internet advertising: East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2025] 1 SLR 914; [2025] SGCA 28

I. Executive Summary  Directors in Singapore are subject to both statutory and common law duties. These include the duty of due skill, care, and diligence (“Care Duty”), as well as the duty to act in the best interests of the creditors (“Creditor Duty”).  Goh Jin Hian v Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd [2025] 1 SLR 872 … Continue reading “Sentinels, not Sleuths”: A Clarification of Directors’ Duties in Singapore: Goh Jin Hian v Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd [2025] 1 SLR 872; [2025] SGHC(A) 7

I. Executive Summary This case concerned a chartered accountant who ran a business of incorporating companies in Singapore for numerous foreign companies and offered his services as a locally resident nominee director. In undertaking this role, he had failed to exercise reasonable diligence in overseeing the Singapore companies’ affairs as required under law, allowing them … Continue reading A revised sentencing framework for breach of directors’ duties for nominee directors: Public Prosecutor v Zheng Jia [2025] SGHC 76; [2025] 3 SLR 1290

I. Executive Summary The law makes a distinction between what is known as a “legal” versus a “beneficial” interest in property. A party whose name is recorded as the owner of a property is considered to be holding the “legal” interest in and title to the property. However, the party holding legal title may also … Continue reading The Distinction between Legal and Beneficial Interests in Joint Accounts: Khoo Phaik Ean Patricia and another v Khoo Phaik Eng Katherine and others [2025] SGCA 20; [2025] 1 SLR 758