Category: Supreme Court Case Summary Initiative

I. Executive Summary This case involves the following statutory presumptions. Section 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (2020 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) states that where an accused is in possession of more than a certain quantity of a controlled drug, he is presumed to have possessed the drug for the purpose of trafficking, unless … Continue reading Constitutionality of Presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act: Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed & 3 Ors v Attorney-General [2025] 1 SLR 1287, [2025] SGCA 40

I. Executive Summary  East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2025] SGCA 28 clarifies Singapore’s approach to trade mark infringement, particularly in the context of internet advertising.  This dispute arose when Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd (“Family Podiatry”) used Google’s advertising services (“Google Ads”) to display internet advertisements featuring the … Continue reading Trade mark infringement in the age of internet advertising: East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2025] 1 SLR 914; [2025] SGCA 28

I. Executive Summary  Directors in Singapore are subject to both statutory and common law duties. These include the duty of due skill, care, and diligence (“Care Duty”), as well as the duty to act in the best interests of the creditors (“Creditor Duty”).  Goh Jin Hian v Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd [2025] 1 SLR 872 … Continue reading “Sentinels, not Sleuths”: A Clarification of Directors’ Duties in Singapore: Goh Jin Hian v Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd [2025] 1 SLR 872; [2025] SGHC(A) 7

I. Executive Summary This case concerned a chartered accountant who ran a business of incorporating companies in Singapore for numerous foreign companies and offered his services as a locally resident nominee director. In undertaking this role, he had failed to exercise reasonable diligence in overseeing the Singapore companies’ affairs as required under law, allowing them … Continue reading A revised sentencing framework for breach of directors’ duties for nominee directors: Public Prosecutor v Zheng Jia [2025] SGHC 76; [2025] 3 SLR 1290

I. Executive Summary The law makes a distinction between what is known as a “legal” versus a “beneficial” interest in property. A party whose name is recorded as the owner of a property is considered to be holding the “legal” interest in and title to the property. However, the party holding legal title may also … Continue reading The Distinction between Legal and Beneficial Interests in Joint Accounts: Khoo Phaik Ean Patricia and another v Khoo Phaik Eng Katherine and others [2025] SGCA 20; [2025] 1 SLR 758

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.