Category: Blog

A letter of credit ("LC") is an assurance made by the issuing bank that the beneficiary will receive timely payments, on condition that certain documents are presented according to the terms of the LC. In UniCredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2023] SGCA 41, the Court of Appeal reiterated that issuing banks are obligated to make payment under an LC, unless the beneficiary fraudulently presents documents containing material representations of fact which it knows to be untrue, for the purpose of drawing on the credit. The CA held that here, the beneficiary-seller's sale and buyback arrangement with the buyer (who requested the LC) did not constitute such fraud.

In Ng Kok Wai v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 306, it was held that the District Court can try and convict a Singaporean who commits a crime (under the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)) on a ship on the high seas, even though the crime occurred outside of Singapore. This is because (a) the State Courts Act 1970 provides the District Court criminal jurisdiction over such persons, and (b) section 3 of the Penal Code permits its extraterritorial application.

In IIa Technologies Pte Ltd v Element Six Technologies Ltd [2023] SGCA 5, the CA considered when a patent would be invalid on the grounds of insufficiency. The most common way is known as classical insufficiency. This arises when the patent specification is not clear and complete enough to teach the skilled person to perform the innovation. Further, the CA also accepted, for the first time in Singapore, that insufficiency may also result from uncertainty, where a skilled person is unable to determine whether a claimed product or process falls within the scope of the patent.

Under contract law in Singapore, parties are generally free to enter contracts and undertake what are known as “primary obligations”, and are also free to change their mind and break their primary obligations if they so wish, albeit at a price (eg by paying damages). Any clause that essentially forces compliance with the primary obligations of a contract will be considered an unenforceable penalty. This is known as the “penalty doctrine”. In Ethoz Capital Ltd v Im8ex Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGCA 3, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) further developed the penalty doctrine. Specifically, the CA held that there was a difference between paying a debt owed in instalments over a period of time, and the immediate and full payment of said debt owed upon default. In this case, the CA held that the primary obligation here was for payment of interest on the loan in question in instalments, and that the contractual requirement for the latter upon the debtor’s default was, under the circumstances, an unenforceable penalty. Further, the CA recognised that while the burden of proving that a clause is a penalty generally rests with the party making the claim, when there is evidence to show that a clause is a penalty, the evidential burden would then shift to the other party to prove otherwise.

In Singapore Medical Council v Wee Teong Boo [2023] SGHC 180, the Singapore High Court ("HC") had to consider the appropriate sentence for the respondent, a medical practitioner who was found guilty of 20 charges of professional misconduct, including ten for inappropriately prescribing certain medicines ("Inappropriate Prescription charges"). Although an application of the relevant sentencing framework would have led to an indicative sentencing range of between two to three years' suspension for each Inappropriate Prescription charge, the HC stressed that this could be departed from where appropriate. Particularly in cases where an errant doctor faced multiple charges, which each attracted a substantial suspension term, it would be appropriate to consider if the doctor’s overall misconduct warrants striking him off instead. Because the respondent had, with respect to the Inappropriate Prescription charges, flagrantly abused his privilege as a medical practitioner, systemically disregarded his patients' well-being, and persistently failed to appreciate his misconduct’s seriousness, the HC held that he was unfit to remain a medical practitioner. He was thus struck off the Register of Medical Practitioners.

In a divorce, by virtue of section 112 of the Women's Charter 1961, any gifted or inherited assets are not usually included in the matrimonial pool of assets to be divided. However, where a spouse manifests a clear and unambiguous intention to treat such an asset as part of the family estate, should the courts give effect to such an intention? This issue arose in CLC v CLB [2023] SGCA 10. There, the Husband argued that certain monies which he had received from his late father should be excluded from the matrimonial pool, and not be subject to division with the Wife. The Court of Appeal clarified that section 112 did not preclude the courts from giving effect to a spouse’s intention to bring non-matrimonial assets into the matrimonial pool in accordance with principles of property law. As the Husband had demonstrated a clear and unambiguous intention to incorporate the disputed monies into the family estate, they were deemed matrimonial assets and subject to division.

In a recent 2023 case, the General Division of the High Court ("HC") had to consider whether the applicant, who had committed plagiarism in respect of a law school assignment, could be admitted to the Singapore Bar. The HC reiterated that where there is no question as to the competence or qualifications of the applicant, the relevant central inquiry is whether the applicant is suitable for admission in terms of his character. Finding that the applicant continued to demonstrate a lack of insight into the ethical implications of his misconduct, the HC granted him leave to withdraw his application for admission, subject to his undertaking not to bring a fresh application for admission in Singapore or to the bar in any other jurisdiction for four months. Notably, the HC also clarified that those who wish to be part-called to the Singapore Bar in the future should disclose any prior misconduct that may affect their suitability to practice at the first opportunity in their part-call affidavits. The failure to do so would be taken into account by the courts in assessing their suitability to be admitted.