The recent case of Nurun Novi Saydur Rahman v Public Prosecutor was the first time an offence under s 15(3A) of the Workplace Safety and Health Act (“WSHA”) had been brought before the Singapore High Court. The High Court introduced a new two-stage sentencing framework to be applied to such offences. This paper examines the rationale and implications of the proposed sentencing framework.
Conference Notes: Forum (Non) Conveniens in England – Past, Present and Future
Dr Ardavan Arzandeh (Ardavan Arzandeh, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Bristol Law School) discussed his recently published book, Forum (Non) Conveniens in England: Past, Present, and Future (Hart Publishing, 2019) during a research seminar of the same name. Here are the conference notes for this discussion of the history. application, and direction of the doctrine of forum (non) conveniens in private international law.
Lost Chance – Acceptance at last? A commentary on Armstrong, Carol Ann v Quest Laboratories Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 66
In the tort of negligence, damages are awarded if the claimant can establish that he has suffered loss. While most claims for loss in the tort of negligence usually revolve around physical damage, courts have recognised losses of a non-physical nature, including claims for pure economic loss or loss of genetic affinity. Courts, however, have consistently refused to recognise claims for a loss of chance in the context of medical negligence. Simply put, a lost chance arises where negligence on the part of the doctor deprives the patient of his chances of recovery.
Sentencing Intellectually Disabled Young Offenders: Public Prosecutor v ASR [2019] SGCA 16
In Public Prosecutor v ASR [2019] SGCA 16, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) discussed the appropriate sentencing approach for a young offender, the respondent, who committed serious crimes, including aggravated rape and sexual assault by penetration on an intellectually disabled young girl, but who was also himself intellectually disabled, with a mental age of between eight and ten. The respondent was 14 years old when he committed the offences in question. When he was convicted in 2017, he was about 16 ½ years old. He was nearly 18 years old at the time of sentencing, in 2018.
Medical Negligence: Breaching the duty of care – Noor Azlin Binte Abdul Rahman v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd & others [2019] SGCA 13
At the heart of Noor Azlin Binte Abdul Rahman v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd & others [2019] SGCA 13 is the allegation that the three named doctors who attended to patient Noor Azlin binte Abdul Rahman (“Ms Azlin”) at Changi General Hospital (“CGH”) over a four-year period, as well as CGH, were negligent. Azlin argues that their negligence delayed the detection of the malignancy which resulted in her having lung cancer, and caused her to suffer the loss of a better medical outcome. The High Court (“HC”) found that the two Accident and Emergency (“A&E”) department doctors who saw Ms Azlin did not breach their duty of care. Conversely, the HC found that CGH, as well as CGH specialist respiratory physician Dr Imran Bin Mohamed Noor (“Dr Imran”) had indeed breached their respective duties of care. The HC nonetheless dismissed Ms Azlin’s claim of negligence against them, as she was unable to show that their actions had resulted in her delayed diagnosis. On appeal, while the Court of Appeal (“CA”) upheld the HC’s decisions regarding the three doctors, it allowed her claim of negligence against CGH.
Case Commentary: Ochroid Trading v Chua Siok Lui
Where a contract is illegal, the contract is void and the courts will not enforce the contract. Despite the simplicity of the foregoing logic, the concept of illegality in contract law – often used as a defence mechanism in lawsuits – has long vexed students and practitioners alike. As Lady Justice Gloster in Patel v Mirza (“Patel”) remarked, it is “almost impossible to ascertain or articulate principled rules from the authorities relating to the recovery of money or other assets paid or transferred under illegal contracts”. In Singapore, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) in Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo (“Ting Siew May”) sought to overcome this difficulty by establishing a two-stage approach to the application of the principles of statutory illegality, common law illegality and restitutionary recovery. In the later case of Ochroid Trading Ltd v Chua Siok Lui (“Ochroid”), the CA affirmed the Ting Siew May framework and the principles encapsulated within. In coming to its decision, the CA in Ochroid also considered and rejected the approach adopted by the UK Supreme Court in Patel, which, essentially, determines whether a contract should be struck down for illegality based on a range of factors.
Catch Me If You Can: Claiming jurisdiction over an overseas defendant – Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu Ming [2019] SGCA 11
The appellant, Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd (“Shanghai Turbo”), is a Singapore-listed company that owns Hong Kong-incorporated Best Success (Hong Kong) Ltd, which in turn owns China-incorporated Changzhou 3D Technological Complete Set Equipment Ltd (“CZ3D”). The respondent, Liu Ming (“Liu”), owned approximately 30% of the shares in Shanghai Turbo. He was also a director of all three companies, and held other management positions there. In April 2017, Shanghai Turbo fired Liu from all his positions in the companies, allegedly because of declining levels of profit under his management. Subsequently, Shanghai Turbo filed a suit against Liu for breaching his service agreement (“the Agreement”) with Shanghai Turbo in several ways, including disclosing confidential information to a competitor, and diverting business away from CZ3D. The complication for Shanghai Turbo was that Liu was a Chinese citizen who resided in Changzhou, China. Generally, the court can only adjudicate on disputes between parties if it has jurisdiction (or authority to hear and determine the matter) over them. However, Singapore courts generally do not have jurisdiction over parties, unless those parties voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction or have been served with the necessary originating processes. Furthermore, where a defending party resides outside of Singapore, the initiating party has to go through the added step of obtaining the court’s permission to serve the originating processes overseas.
Sex and Lies in Asia Pacific: A Comparative Study of Fraudulent Sex Criminalisation in Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong
Report on a research seminar by Associate Professor Chen Jialin from Melbourne Law School on 30 January 2019. A/P Chen first noted that the criminal laws of Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong were derived from three different sources: Singapore’s from the Indian Penal Code, Hong Kong’s from English criminal law, and Taiwan’s from the German Penal Code. A/P Chen then compared how Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong treated fraudulent sex crimes, with focus on the issue of consent. He also highlighted how underlying societal attitudes could sometime transcend (or ignore) ostensible legal differences.
How Winding Up Proceedings Can Affect A Judgment Creditor’s Rights: SCK Serijadi Sdn Bhd v Artison Interior Pte Ltd [2019] SCGA 05
In SCK Serijadi Sdn Bhd v Artison Interior Pte Ltd [2019] SGCA 05, SCK Serijadi Sdn Bhd (“SCK”) engaged Artison Interior Pte Ltd (“Artison”) to conduct interior decoration works. SCK overpaid Artison and sued Artison for the return of the overpayments. It won an award of $250,000 in the District Court. SCK then attempted to enforce this award by filing two garnishee applications against a third party Shanghai Chong Kee Furniture & Construction Pte Ltd (“Shanghai Chong Kee)”, for $155,000 and $57,500. These proceedings would “attach” (or appropriate) any debts that Shanghai Chong Kee owed to Artison. Thus if SCK succeeded in these garnishee applications, effectively Shanghai Chong Kee (“garnishee”) would have to directly pay SCK (“judgment creditor”) any monies that Shanghai Chong Kee owed Artison (“judgment debtor”), up to the limit of the court-approved amounts.
The validity of “No Oral Modification” clauses and the UKSC decision in Rock Advertising Limited v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited [2018] UKSC 24
The recent UK Supreme Court’s decision in Rock Advertising Limited v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited was highly anticipated. Modern litigation rarely raises new fundamental issues in the law of contract; this case, however, dealt with two. The first issue was whether a contractual term providing that an agreement can only be modified in writing and must be signed by both parties was effective. Such terms are commonly referred to as “No Oral Modification” clauses. The second issue was whether an agreement to vary a payment obligation was supported by consideration.
smulexicon.com 