In the landmark decision of Reed, Michael v Bellingham, Alex (Attorney-General Intervener) [2022] SGCA 60, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) clarified the law pertaining to two provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act (Act 26 of 2012) (“PDPA”), namely, sections 4(1)(b) and 32(1). Section 4(1)(b) of the PDPA excludes a defendant from the PDPA's operation if its requirements are made out. The CA held that for a defendant to avail himself or herself of this defence, the defendant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she was an “employee acting in the course of his or her employment with an organisation”. As for section 32(1) of the PDPA, this provision grants a person who has suffered "loss or damage" directly as a result of a contravention of certain provisions in the PDPA the right of action for relief in civil proceedings in a court. The CA clarified that while the scope of "loss or damage" in this provision does not include the loss of control of personal data, it includes the emotional distress caused to a claimant by the breach of his or her personal data.
Judicial Review of Vaccination-Differentiated Measures – Han Hui Hui and others v Attorney-General [2022] SGHC 141
When the COVID-19 pandemic struck the world, governments around the world - including Singapore - acted swiftly to curb the spread of the virus. Against this backdrop, Han Hui Hui and others v Attorney-General [2022] SGHC 141 came to the fore as the first judicial challenge against vaccination-differentiated safe management measures in Singapore, examining these measures on the grounds of illegality, irrationality, a breach of Article 12(1) of the Constitution of Singapore and substantive legitimate expectations.
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.
The Endgame of Section 377A Litigation: Case note on Tan Seng Kee v Attorney-General [2022] SGCA 16
*By: Don Ho Jia Hao I. IntroductionThis case is the latest instalment of more than a decade of litigation on the constitutionality of s 377A of the Penal Code (“PC”).[1] Section 377A provides:Outrages on decency377A. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure … Continue reading The Endgame of Section 377A Litigation: Case note on Tan Seng Kee v Attorney-General [2022] SGCA 16
Changes to Sentencing Guidelines for Workplace Negligence: Mao Xuezhong v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGHC 99
In recent years, the higher courts have been issuing more sentencing guidelines to ensure the consistency of sentences being meted out to offenders. In Mao Xuezhong v Public Prosecutor (“Mao Xuezhong”), a three-Judge coram of the High Court issued a new sentencing guideline for offences under s 15(3A) of the Workplace Safety and Health Act (“WSHA”):
Directors and their Two Hats: An Analysis of Sim Tee Meng v Haw Wan Sin David [2019] SGCA 71
Traditionally, directors are said to only owe a duty of care to their company. In certain circumstances however, directors may also owe a personal duty of care to their clients, thereby rendering the director personally liable to the client. In Sim Tee Meng v Haw Wan Sin David [2019] SGCA 71, the Court of Appeal applied the Spandeck framework in establishing whether a duty of care was owed by a key executive officer to the company's clients.
Yes, Prime Minister? A commentary on R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41
In a referendum held on 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Since then, the government’s attempts to initiate the withdrawal process have not only been fraught with political disagreement and delays, but have also prompted several constitutional law challenges.
Winning But Not Winning: Sharing Lottery Winnings In The Event of a Divorce (BOI v BOJ [2019] 2 SLR 114)
In the decision of BOI v BOJ, the Court of Appeal clarified that lottery winnings received during a marriage constitute matrimonial assets to be divided between parties, should they divorce. The court also set out the approach to attributing contributions from lottery winnings. Instead of examining who purchased the winning ticket, the court will focus on the intention with which the ticket was purchased. For parties seeking a divorce, this approach creates a greater responsibility to clearly show their intention that the winnings be fully attributed to them.
Sentencing Approach for Workplace Safety Breaches: Nurun Novi Saydur Rahman v Public Prosecutor [2019] 3 SLR 413
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.
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.
smulexicon.com 