Which Costs Regime Applies for Which Court: CBX and another v CBZ and others [2021] SGCA(I) 4

There are separate costs regimes governing proceedings in the Singapore courts. Costs in civil proceedings in the SGHC are governed by the Rules of Court, while costs in proceedings commenced in the SICC are governed by the SICC Rules. However, what was unclear is which costs regime applied when a matter is transferred from the SGHC to the SICC. In CBX v CBZ, the SGCA has clarified the law as to how costs should be assessed pre and post transfer. Further, the CA also provided a clear approach as to the assessment of quantum of costs.

An Introduction to Syariah Law in Singapore

Singapore is home to a multitude of religions and while Muslims form only 15.6% of the total population, our legal system provides for a Muslim to be governed by Syariah law. However, many Singaporeans do not understand what Syariah law entails or how it is enforced. This commentary seeks to answer the frequently-asked questions regarding this matter. First, we answer the question of what is Syariah law. Second, we elaborate on the persons affected by Syariah law. Third, we set out how Syariah law is administered, and finally, we discuss the substantive differences between Syariah law and “regular” law. “Regular” law in this discussion is confined to the domain of family law in Singapore.

Home-based food businesses: three questions to consider when a customer threatens to sue you for food poisoning

You’ve been running a home-based food business. One day, you’re in the kitchen when you hear your phone buzz. Is this a new order? You pick up the phone, ready for the good news. To your horror, you hear an angry lady shouting at you, claiming that she has suffered food poisoning from your cakes. This lady has threatened to sue you, unless you pay her compensation. This scenario is a nightmare for any home-based food business owner. This article highlights three questions for owners of home-based food businesses to consider when caught in such a situation: (1) when preparing the food, did you adhere to the Singapore Food Agency Guidelines on Food Safety and Hygiene Practices (“SFA Guidelines”)?; (2) was your food the actual cause of the customer’s food poisoning?; and (3) what is the customer seeking compensation for?

Don’t judge a prosecution by its cover – Equality in Implementing Prosecutorial Discretion

The prosecution performs an important task of maintaining law and order, and upholding the rule of law. In exercising their discretionary powers as vested to them under Article 35(8) of the Constitution, this may lead to differential treatment between seemingly equally situated accused persons. While this may raise questions regarding the constitutional right to equality, this article will illustrate why these prosecutorial decisions are nonetheless in accordance with Article 12 of the Constitution.

The Expedited Protection Order: What is it and Can it be challenged?

From the time of application to the time a Personal Protection Order (“PPO”) is granted, the applicant could still be exposed to violence from the family member. The expedited protection order (“EPO”) is a temporary PPO that serves to protect the applicant while the PPO application is pending. This article summarises the law on EPOs and offers information on what to do when an EPO is issued against you.

Is the potential loss of emoluments a relevant sentencing factor? M Raveendran v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGHC 254

The High Court in M Raveendran v PP decided that the potential loss of emoluments is not a relevant sentencing factor. In coming to this decision, the High Court considered four possible bases upon which the reduction of a sentence on account of the potential loss of emoluments could conceivably be justified. These were the principles of equal impact, parsimony, judicial mercy, as well as whether any express terms of a statute applied in the instant case.

How to construe an atypical bill of lading: The “Luna” and another appeal [2021] SGCA 84

Bills of lading have been described as the cornerstone of modern sea carriage. Traditionally, a bill of lading serves three functions. It is a: (1) receipt by the carrier acknowledging the shipment of goods; (2) memorandum of the terms of the contract of carriage; and (3) document of title to the goods shipped. However, what happens when a bill of lading cannot possibly serve any of its traditional functions? In answering this question, the Court of Appeal in The “Luna” and another appeal considered the contracting parties’ intentions behind the issuance of the bill of lading as well as the underlying sale arrangement. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal held that the bills of lading in question would not pass as documents of title as the contracting parties never intended for them to function as such, and they did not and could not serve the traditional functions of a bill of lading.

Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act: Jumadi bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2021] SGCA 113

Jumadi v PP concerns section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act, a provision that incentivises accused persons to cooperate with CNB officers so as to obtain a certificate of substantive assistance and escape the gallows. The notice, which brings s 33B to the attention of the accused, cannot be construed as an inducement or promise because otherwise, statements recorded after the issuance of the notice would be rendered inadmissible as evidence. In Jumadi v PP, Jumadi claimed that CNB officers made him a promise before the notice was issued, and in any case, the notice was an inducement, thereby challenging the admissibility of his statements. Unsurprisingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed all his claims.

Logachev strikes again: A “new” sentencing framework for evasion of income tax in Tan Song Cheng v PP [2021] SGHC 138

Consistency in sentencing promotes fairness by ensuring that like offenders are treated similarly by our criminal justice system. This can be achieved by applying well-constructed sentencing frameworks. The High Court in Tan Song Cheng v PP acknowledged the importance of consistency in sentencing, particularly for offences under s 96(1) of the Income Tax Act.