In the recent case of Lee Tat Cheng v Maka GPS Technologies Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 18, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) addressed an issue concerning patent construction: whether Singapore should adopt the approach taken by the UK Supreme Court in Actavis UK Limited v Eli Lilly and Company [2017] UKSC 48 (“Actavis”), which reformulated the UK approach to patent construction and infringement.
Possibility of Establishing a Fact-Finding Commission for the Rohingya Crisis
While the recent attacks against the Rohingya (“Rohingya Crisis”) were most certainly conducted by the Myanmar Army, the Government (“Government”) – under the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi (“Aung”) – has dismissed the Rohingya as Bengali illegals, deemed the crisis as self-inflicted, and characterised media coverage as an “iceberg of misinformation”. When the truth of events is called into question before the more difficult question of liability is engaged, it becomes, in the authors' opinion, even more pressing for a comprehensive account of the conflict to be produced. This is not only for loftier reconciliation efforts but to achieve consensus on themes like dignity and the need to eschew violence.
Unpacking the Courier Exception in the Misuse of Drugs Act: Zainudin bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 8
When is a drug trafficker who claims to be a mere ‘courier’ not merely a ‘courier’? The Court of Appeal addressed this question in Zainudin bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 8. The issue was whether a drug trafficker who divided and repacked drugs was merely “transporting, sending or delivering a controlled drug” under s 33B(2)(a)(iii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), and hence eligible for discretionary life imprisonment (rather than the death penalty) under this so-called “courier exception”.
Getting to the Root of the Problem: Written Representations to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods
The phenomenon of the spread of deliberate falsehoods has been exacerbated in the current day and age with the usage of technology. An examination of this issue shows that that the motivations and reasons for spreading such falsehoods have not changed. Instead, the primary mischief lies in the near instantaneous dissemination and ease of access via internet intermediaries. Despite this, there is a gap in the regulatory tools available to deal with this mischief. The solution hence should lie in imposing some sort of liability on internet intermediaries to remove deliberate falsehoods. Nevertheless, it is crucial that such intermediary liability must be carefully calibrated to minimize restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.
A Swiss and a Miss: The Future of Swiss-style Patents in Singapore
In the recently-decided case of Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd[2017] SGCA 45, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) addressed a number of novel issues in Singapore patent law. The dispute between the two pharmaceutical companies was based on Novartis’ potential infringement of Warner-Lambert’s patent. This patent (filed in 1997) claimed a monopoly over the use of a substance, pregabalin, for the treatment of pain (the “Patent”).
Singapore’s approach towards adopting the multi-factorial approach in insolvency proceedings
In cross-border insolvency, there are two contrasting approaches. On the one hand, there is the territorial approach, focused primarily on the interest of the local creditors. On the other, there is the universal approach, where one court leads the administration of the insolvency proceedings, and other courts cooperate with the main action. For the universal approach, the centre of main interest (“COMI”) test is pivotal to determining whether the court in question has the authority to collect and deal with all assets of the debtor. In Singapore, the universal approach has been adopted. Singapore’s position is that its courts retain the inherent discretion to render assistance to foreign winding-up proceedings where appropriate.
The missing “custom” in the customary international law: Understanding the undue restriction of states’ influence in the creation and crystallisation of law of state responsibility
The law of state responsibility occupies a key position in international law. It is not concerned with primary obligations, but is a body of general secondary rules governing 1) when a state is considered to have breached one of its international obligations, 2) the consequences flowing from the breach, 3) the locus standi of injured parties, and 4) the form of remedy sought. However the absence of primary obligations means that the developing the law of state responsibility as a set of customary international law (“CIL”) rules is extremely complicated, since states are free to determine their own specific secondary rules in their treaties.
A glimpse into the ASEAN-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement
After close to 4 years of negotiations, the hugely anticipated ASEAN-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement (AHKFTA) has finally been set in stone. Along with the accompanying ASEAN-Hong Kong Investment Agreement (AHKIA), the two agreements were signed on the sidelines of the 31st ASEAN summit in the Philippines.
Assistance in Public Lotteries: The Approach in Bijabahadur
In the 19th century, illegal gaming activities managed by syndicates were part of the general crime that was rampant in Singapore (then known as the Straits Settlement). This was a serious problem as the early inhabitants of Singapore became addicted to gambling, leading to undesirable outcomes.[1] Gambling activities came to be regarded as vices by Sir Stamford Raffles, and rules to regulate illegal public gambling were put into place.
The doctrine of the ultra-hazardous act after Ng Huat Seng
In November 2017 the Singapore Court of Appeal narrowed the scope of “ultra-hazardous activity” under Singapore tort law through the case of Ng Huat Seng v Munib Mohammad Madni, and clarified (in obiter) the scope of activities which may fall within the doctrine of the ultra-hazardous act.
smulexicon.com 