In the recent case of Chia Kok Weng v Chia Kwok Yeo, the Court of Appeal clarified the law on the presumption of resulting trusts. Specifically, the Court of Appeal made a distinction between (a) an intention to make a gift and (b) an intention to not retain a beneficial interest in the property. While they appear to be two sides of the same coin, it is necessary to distinguish between them in certain situations to afford greater protection to the uninformed transferor.
Jurisdiction for Patent Revocation in Counterclaims: The Sun Electric Approach
The key question posed in the recent Singapore High Court decision of Sun Electric Pte Ltd v Sunseap Group Pte Ltd (“Sun Electric (No 2)”) was whether the High Court had jurisdiction at first instance to revoke a patent by way of a counterclaim in infringement proceedings. George Wei J’s response to this query was “no”.
A principled approach to sentencing: Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor
Sentencing has always been something of an art. The balance between doing justice to the facts of the case and judicial consistency has proven to be somewhat elusive, in no small part due to the medley of factors which might arise for consideration. Fortunately, the recent Court of Appeal (“CA”) decision in Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor (“Ng Kean Meng”) has laid out a more principled approach to sentencing.
The Supremacy of the “Taxpayer-Intentions” Approach to the Capital-Income Divide: GBG v The Comptroller of Income Tax
The Income Tax Board of Review (“ITBR”) decision in the 2016 case of GBG v The Comptroller of Income Tax (“GBG”) has shed some light on the conditions that must be fulfilled before the costs of debt may be deducted against taxable income. More importantly, it establishes the legal principle that whether expenditure is deemed capital or revenue in nature depends on the purpose of the underlying transaction ab initio, regardless of whether or not the purpose of that underlying transaction was subsequently realised.
Reservations about the Value of Reserved Elections
At a press conference on 9 August 1965, moments after Singapore gained independence, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew proclaimed, “This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place.” This statement set the stage for Singapore’s development as a multiracial country. With the introduction of the reserved election mechanism under Article 19B of the Constitution, the question that arises is whether this mechanism, a “hiatus-triggered model” that encourages diversity in the office of the President, truly furthers multiracialism in Singapore.
Further amendments to the Companies Act: Annual General Meeting and Annual Returns Filing Requirements
In 2017, the Companies Act (“CA”) underwent another round of reform. Among the new legislative changes are the modifications of the statutory requirements for the annual general meeting (“AGM”) and annual returns (“AR”) filing. These modifications should minimise the regulatory burden on companies in two ways. Firstly, there will be new and more straightforward criteria for setting the dates for the AGM and AR filing. Secondly, a new AGM exemption for private companies will be introduced.
Towards the Acceptance of Proportionality in Singapore Constitutional and Administrative Law
Social organization in modern democracies is premised on a paradoxical relation. Power is bestowed upon the government, only to be ultimately exercised over its source – the people. A corollary of the systemic design is thus that power is to be exercised within stipulated limits, with the judiciary positioned to safeguard peoples’ rights. To this end, proportionality has emerged as a doctrine to guide judicial decisions over the appropriateness of legislation and governmental action.
Frustrating the No-Frustrating Rule – the Singapore Code on Takeovers and Mergers
An increasing number of iconic home-grown listed companies are acquired by foreign firms such as Raffles Hotel, Robinsons department store, Asia Pacific Breweries, and Fraser & Neave. The trend has raised public concerns of whether the government, should do more to protect local brands in Singapore. This leads to the question of whether no-frustration rule should be abolished from the Singapore Code on Takeovers and Mergers to allow the target board to erect defensive measures to frustrate the bid. In particular, whether the Delaware position in the United States should be adopted instead. Delaware is chosen as a comparator for this paper as the majority of companies listed in NASDAQ and NYSE are incorporated in Delaware.
Looking for Creativity in Telephone Directories: Global Yellow Pages
In Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd (“Global Yellow Pages”), the Court of Appeal (“CA”) clarified the extent of copyright protection afforded to databases. In doing so, the CA considered issues of copyright subsistence and infringement for compilation of factual material, providing guidance on the nature of copyright protection in Singapore.
Versloot Dredging: Time for Singapore to Follow the Tide?
The traditional common law position in the field of insurance has always been biased towards the insurer, where insurance doctrines have been “inflexibly applied in favour of insurance companies.” This has been noted in several instances, such as the insured’s duty of non-disclosure, the interpretation of insurance policies, and in the context of fraudulent claims. In the recent UK case of Versloot Dredging v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG (“Versloot”), however, a shift in this attitude can be observed, specifically in regard to fraudulent claims.
smulexicon.com 