In Singapore, those who wish to be admitted to the Bar must demonstrate proper character befitting that of an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. What, then, happens if an applicant has a prior record of misconduct? This issue arose in Re Tay Jie Qi and another matter [2023] SGHC 59, where the High Court ("HC") had to consider whether the two applicants were suitable for admission to the Bar. One applicant had committed plagiarism while in law school. The other applicant had, also while in law school, committed shoplifting; separately, a slab of illegal substance was found in her sister’s bag while they were out clubbing. The HC noted that their wrongdoing had occurred some time ago. The HC further observed that both applicants had voluntarily disclosed their misconduct despite that information not being in the public domain; were not involved in any other type of unsatisfactory conduct in the intervening years; and demonstrated repentance and remorse for their misconduct. Their willingness to face up to their mistakes and to deal "candidly and forthrightly" with the relevant stakeholders was “heartening”. The HC also emphasised that the purpose of a deferment in Bar admission applications is not punitive, but a rehabilitative one. As such, the HC allowed both their applications for admission to the Bar and welcomed them to the profession.
The importance of proper and adequate pleadings: How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appeals [2023] SGCA 21
A pleading is a legal document through which a party sets out its case. It serves two key functions. First, pleadings critically define each party's case, thereby preventing the other parties from being taken by surprise. Second, pleadings assist the court in ascertaining the issues in dispute which require determination. So what happens when a party fails to plead its case adequately? This issue arose in How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appeals [2023] SGCA 21 ("How Weng Fan (Pleadings)"). This was the follow up from the previous case of How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appeals [2022] SGCA 72, where the CA held that all seven defendants had breached their tortious duty of skill and care owed to the claimants. However, it left open the question as to the appropriate orders to be made, because one of the claimants appeared to not have adequately pleaded its case in tort against the seven defendants. Against this context, in How Weng Fan (Pleadings), after clarifying the relevant principles of pleadings, the CA held that the claimant in question did not plead a case in tort against three out of seven of the Town Council members. They were thus held to not be liable to this claimant in this regard.
Clarification On Defence for Employees & The Right of Private Action Under The Personal Data Protection Act: Reed, Michael v Bellingham, Alex (Attorney-General Intervener) [2022] SGCA 60
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.
Keynote Address by Professor David B. Wilkins: “From ‘Law’s Empire’ to ‘Integrated Solutions’: How Globalization, Technology, and Organizational Change Are Opening ‘New Frontiers’ For Lawyers, Clients, and Society”
On 3 August 2023, legal practitioners, academics, judges and professionals from around the globe gathered in the SMU Hall for the long-awaited conference titled “The Next Frontier of Lawyering: From ESG to GPT”. This conference is co-organised by the Singapore Management University’s Yong Pung How School of Law and the Singapore Academy of Law. The keynote speaker for this conference is Professor David B. Wilkins (Lester Kissel Professor of Law, Vice Dean, Global Initiatives on the Legal Profession, Faculty Director, Center on the Legal Profession, Harvard Law School), who delivered his keynote address titled “From “Law’s Empire” to “Integrated Solutions”: How Globalization, Technology, and Organizational Change Are Opening “New Frontiers” For Lawyers, Clients, and Society”.
Diminished Responsibility and the Mandatory Death Penalty in Drug Trafficking Cases: Roszaidi bin Osman v PP [2022] SGCA 75
The offence of trafficking in a controlled drug under section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (“MDA”) is one that typically attracts the death penalty. However, under section 33B(1)(b) of the MDA the court shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment in lieu of the death penalty if the offender can prove that (1) he was merely a courier and (2) he was suffering from an abnormality of mind substantially impairing his mental responsibility for the offence. In Roszaidi Bin Osman v PP, the Court of Appeal considered whether the accused’s mental responsibility for a drug trafficking offence had been substantially impaired by his major depressive disorder (“MDD”) and substance use disorder (“SUD”). In a rare 3-2 split decision, a majority of the court held that the accused's mental responsibility had been so substantially impaired. The majority found that his MDD and SUD had operated together in a synergistic manner, exacerbating his overall mental abnormality. The majority also noted that in drug trafficking offences, the court must consider whether the accused’s decision to commit the offence was itself due to his decision-making faculties being substantially impaired, instead of focussing solely on the execution of the offence.
Misconduct in the Bar Examinations: Consequences and the Need for Reflection and Learning Re Tay Quan Li Leon [2022] SGHC 133 and Re Wong Wai Loong Sean and other matters [2022] SGHC 237
“Lawyers are called to be ministers in the temple of justice.” So what happens when aspiring lawyers cheat during the Bar exams? In Re Tay Quan Li Leon and Re Wong Wai Loong Sean and other matters, the Singapore High Court ("HC") allowed five candidates who had cheated during the Bar exams to withdraw their applications for admission to the Bar, subject to certain terms and conditions, such as the exclusion of each candidate’s ability to bring a fresh application for Bar admission for a suitable minimum period of time. In so holding, the HC noted that the primary concern of the court in such cases is not to punish such candidates, but to ensure that they grow to become suitable for admission to the Bar. The HC also laid down a framework to aid future courts in determining the most appropriate course of action to be taken against such candidates.
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.
The Framework and Margins of Transnational Issue Estoppel: The SAL Law Reform Committee Report (2023)
In transnational proceedings, the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel operates to prevent parties from relitigating the same issue in a different jurisdiction once it is determined conclusively in a court. The SAL Law Reform Committee’s recent Report on The Framework and Margins of Transnational Issue Estoppel explores the elements of this doctrine in Singapore, and highlights seven key potential outer limits that one should consider when seeking to invoke the doctrine in an appropriate case. It also seeks to provide a basis of reference from which principles of the transnational issue estoppel can be developed by courts in the future.
Can public servants exercising statutory duties be sued for breaches of private law duties? How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appeals [2022] SGCA 72
Town Council members are public servants exercising statutory duties under public law. But can they be sued in private law for breaches of private law duties? This question arose in How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appeals, where a Town Council sued its Town Council members for alleged breaches of certain private law duties, namely, (1) fiduciary duties, (2) equitable duties of care and skill, and (3) a common law tortious duty of skill and care. The Singapore Court of Appeal held that the Town Council members did not owe the Town Council any fiduciary or equitable duties. They, however, owed the Town Council a common law tortious duty of skill and care (subject to the limits placed by the Town Councils Act), which they had breached in respect of some of their actions.
Navigating Non-compete Clauses in a Competitive Tuition Industry
You work for a tuition centre, but you are overworked to the point where you have been repeatedly burning your weekends. Not to mention, you are also underpaid. You’ve tried raising these issues with your ex-boss but to no avail. “Enough!” you cry. You resign. Shortly after, you join your friend’s tuition company. Enraged, your ex-boss sends you a letter, demanding that you pay liquidated damages for breaching the non-compete clause in your employment contract. The above situation can be distressing for any ex-employee. Hence, this article seeks to educate employees, particularly tuition teachers, on non-compete clauses. It will also demonstrate why it is challenging for employers to enforce such clauses, largely due to the courts’ strict approach when assessing the validity of such clauses.
smulexicon.com 