Category: Supreme Court Initiatives

I. Executive Summary The Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (the “LPA”) consists of rules that regulate the professional conduct of legal practitioners and law practices. Under section 85(3) of the LPA, the Attorney-General (the “AG”) may at any time refer to the Law Society any information touching upon the conduct of an … Continue reading Navigating the Disciplinary Tribunal’s duty to “hear and investigate” a matter: Attorney-General v Shanmugam Manohar and another [2025] 1 SLR 189; [2025] SGCA 2

I.         Executive Summary Central to this case is a core public policy concern in insolvency law – the rule of pari passu distribution. Can a debtor owing money to a company in liquidation be allowed to secure an assignment of claims to itself just before compulsory liquidation, with the aim of later reducing its debt through … Continue reading Rethinking Assignments in Insolvency: DGJ v Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd (in liquidation) and another appeal [2024] SGCA 57; [2024] 2 SLR 790

I.         Executive Summary Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution, where parties mutually agree to bring disputes to arbitrators who make a binding decision in the form of an arbitral award. Generally, parties who participated in the arbitration may later invoke what are known as “infra petita” challenges to such arbitral awards, by pointing to the … Continue reading Non-participating parties to an arbitration cannot challenge an arbitral award based on an infra petita challenge: DEM v DEL [2025] SGCA 1; [2025] 1 SLR 29

In Li Jialin & Anor v Wingcrown Investment Pte Ltd [2024] 2 SLR 372, the Court of Appeal considered, following the termination of a property sale and purchase agreement, whether the seller was entitled to retain any part of the purchase deposit from the buyers. To answer this question, the Court first distinguished the law of deposits (traceable from the laws of ancient Greece) from the law of penalties (an invention of equity, later adopted by the common law around the 18th century), reiterating that these areas of law were distinct. The Court then revised the existing framework for the recovery of a deposit, establishing a simplified three-step test. Under this test, the Court found against the seller, essentially on the basis that the amount claimed was not reasonable as an earnest and was thus not a true deposit; as such the amount could not be claimed by the seller.

In Syed Suhail Bin Syed Zin & 12 Ors v AG [2024] SGCA 39, the Singapore Prison Service (“SPS”) disclosed 13 prisoners’ correspondence with government agencies, organisations, and individuals, without their consent or a court order, to the Attorney-General's Chambers (“AGC”). In response, the claimant-prisoners sought several declarations and damages, including for the unlawful disclosure of their correspondence, breach of confidence, and copyright infringement, against the Attorney-General (“AG”). The Court of Appeal (“CA”) partially ruled in favour of the prisoners, granting declarations that both the AGC and SPS acted unlawfully by disclosing prisoners’ letters and that the AG breached confidentiality.

The protection of geographical indications (“GI”s) under the Geographical Indications Act 2014 (Act 19 of 2014) (“GIA”) safeguards Singapore consumers’ interest, by indicating that food products carry the characteristics that they are known for, and which are attributable to their geographical origin. In Singapore, the term “Parmigiano Reggiano” is a registered GI for cheese from a specific region in Bologna, Italy. The protection of the GI could potentially also extend to “translations” of the term “Parmigiano Reggiano”. In Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano [2024] 2 SLR 624, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) considered whether the term “Parmesan” was a translation of “Parmigiano Reggiano”. The CA held that it was not. Based on the range of “Parmesan” cheese products marketed and sold to Singapore consumers, Singapore consumers did not regard “Parmesan” cheese as cheese which must originate exclusively from the specified region in Bologna, Italy.

Under certain conditions, Singapore’s Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“CPC”) allows multiple criminal charges to be heard jointly. This is known as a "joinder of charges". In the recent case of S Iswaran v Public Prosecutor [2024] 4 SLR 965, the Singapore High Court clarified the legal requirements for such a joinder. It held that an application for joinder of charges can be made by both the Defence as well as the Prosecution. Second, it clarified the interpretation of sections 133 and 134 of the CPC.