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.
Resolving Neighbour Disputes in Singapore: Understanding the CDRT Process
Neighbour disputes are increasingly common in Singapore’s high-density housing landscape. The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (“CDRT”) offer a legal avenue for resolving such conflicts, but filing a claim is far from immediate. Year 4 LL.B. student Aretha Quek explores the process of bringing a claim before the CDRT. She also highlights the importance of mediation, as legal proceedings before the CDRT should remain a last resort in preserving neighbourly harmony.
Order Amidst Disorder: The Value and Challenges of Upholding the International Rule of Law
Amidst increasing geopolitical tensions and upheaval, this article examines the critical, albeit challenged, role of public international law (“PIL”) in upholding the international rule of law (“ROL”). Traditionally, public international law has played a pivotal role in this endeavour through hard and soft law mechanisms. However, its limitations in ensuring compliance and enforcement, coupled with the emergence of non-legal solutions, has called into question whether PIL is still effective and necessary in upholding the ROL. This article explores what PIL and non-legal solutions entail, how they complement each other, and, where they may fall short. Despite examples of numerous breaches of PIL, this article posits that it remains a bedrock of the international ROL by shaping norms, influencing state conduct positively, and reinforcing the global legal order. Further, the international community’s response to recent crises reflects a continued belief in the international ROL, which states should strive towards through legal rules, norms, and extra-legal solutions.
“Parmesan” vs “Parmigiano Reggiano”: Protection for Translations of Geographical Indications — Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano [2024] 2 SLR 624; [2024] SGCA 53
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.
When Joinders of Charges are allowed under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010: S Iswaran v Public Prosecutor [2024] 4 SLR 965; [2024] SGHC 123
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.
Determining the Nature & Consequences of a Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Credit Suisse Trust Limited v Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others [2024] SGCA(I) 5; [2024] 2 SLR 0164
In Credit Suisse Trust Limited v Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others [2024] 2 SLR 0164, Credit Suisse Trust Limited (“CS Trust”) was the trustee of a trust holding assets exceeding US$1.1 billion. These assets, which were deposited with Credit Suisse AG, were managed by an individual who subsequently misappropriated the assets. Upon being sued for breach of duty as trustee, CS Trust argued that it had only breached a tortious duty of care. However, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) held that CS Trust had in fact breached its fiduciary duty to the trust beneficiaries. This gave rise to the presumption that CS Trust’s breach caused the trust losses, and to rebut this presumption CS Trust would have to show that the beneficiaries would have suffered the losses even if there was no breach. The CA also clarified that fiduciary and tortious duties were neither binary nor mutually exclusive – the duties were theoretically distinct and could be owed and breached by the same person.
In The Pursuit of Employment Justice: Making Claims In The Employment Claims Tribunal
Employment disputes are very commonplace in Singapore, with over 9,000 employment claims and appeals lodged in 2023 alone. In Singapore, the Employment Claims Tribunal (“ECT”) hears and determines such employment dispute claims. However, while a claimant might immediately want recourse to the ECT, the process is not so straightforward.
Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] 1 SLR 361; [2024] SGCA 10
Directors have a legal fiduciary duty to act in the “best interests of the company”. However, it is not always clear what this means, especially when a company approaches insolvency. When a company is insolvent, the interests of the company’s creditors come to the fore, as the directors are effectively running the business with the creditors’ money. In Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] 1 SLR 361, the Court of Appeal (CA) clarified the nature, scope, and content of the fiduciary duty owed by a director to the company under these circumstances.
Sentencing of Young Offenders charged with Serious Offences
The sentencing of young offenders charged with serious offences in Singapore, such as murder, sexual offences and drug-related offences, has always garnered considerable attention. More particularly, one might wonder how an accused's young age might factor into the sentencing process. In this regard, this piece explains that while rehabilitation is generally presumed to be the dominant sentencing consideration, the courts will, in calibrating the appropriate sentence, also consider various other factors, which might enhance or counterbalance the weight given to an accused’s young age. This is so especially in cases of young offenders charged with serious offences.
Recognising foreign solvent winding-up proceedings in Singapore: Ascentra Holdings, Inc (in official liquidation) and others v SPGK Pte Ltd [2023] SGCA 32; [2023] 2 SLR 421
In Ascentra Holdings, Inc (in official liquidation) and others v SPGK Pte Ltd [2023] 2 SLR 421, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) considered whether winding-up proceedings involving foreign solvent companies can be recognised in Singapore under the Singapore Model Law (modelled after the UNCITRAL Model Law). Ascentra Holdings, Inc, a solvent company, was undergoing voluntary liquidation in the Cayman Islands. The appointed liquidators sought recognition of this liquidation in Singapore. The CA granted such recognition, holding that there was no requirement under the Singapore Model Law that a company be insolvent or in severe financial distress before a proceeding concerning that company may be recognised in Singapore.
smulexicon.com 