Category: Supreme Court Initiatives

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.

“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.

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.

As family litigation becomes increasingly international, different proceedings may be initiated across multiple jurisdictions. In such cases, anti-suit injunctions ("ASIs") may be granted by courts to one party to prevent the other party from initiating foreign proceedings. In VEW v VEV, one of the few cases which deals with conflict of laws in the realm of family law, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) considered that respect for comity required a careful weighing of Singapore and UK public policy considerations in family litigation. This delicate balancing exercise undergirded the CA's decision to set aside the ASI which would have restrained the ex-wife from commencing proceedings in England.

In 2021, Singapore's court system underwent a momentous change with the creation of the Appellate Division of the High Court. In UJM v UJL, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) clarified the statutory scheme allowing for appeals from Appellate Division decisions to the Court of Appeal. The CA also explained what the requirements under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and the Rules of Court entail.

Doctors are medical professionals whom patients trust with personal information. But what happens when doctors share their patients’ contacts with each other in their own private WhatsApp exchanges? In Ong Kian Peng Julian v Singapore Medical Council, the Singapore High Court held that sharing patients’ contacts with one another could amount to improper conduct that brought disrepute to the medical profession, warranting significant penalties.

Minor traffic offences are often the subject of compositions under section 135 of the Road Traffic Act to enable the efficient disposition of these less serious traffic violations. In Teo Seng Tiong v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal held that offences compounded under the RTA or any other law can be taken into account in sentencing for any future offence, and may form the basis of an increase in the overall sentence of such offence.

The law of unjust enrichment deals with situations where one party is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in unjust circumstances. In Esben Finance Ltd and others v Wong Hou-Lianq Neil, the Court of Appeal considered the applicability of the Limitation Act to claims in unjust enrichment, and in what circumstances a lack of consent ought to be recognised as an unjust factor. The Court also gave its provisional views on illegality as a bar to an unjust enrichment defence.