In SCK Serijadi Sdn Bhd v Artison Interior Pte Ltd [2019] SGCA 05, SCK Serijadi Sdn Bhd (“SCK”) engaged Artison Interior Pte Ltd (“Artison”) to conduct interior decoration works. SCK overpaid Artison and sued Artison for the return of the overpayments. It won an award of $250,000 in the District Court. SCK then attempted to enforce this award by filing two garnishee applications against a third party Shanghai Chong Kee Furniture & Construction Pte Ltd (“Shanghai Chong Kee)”, for $155,000 and $57,500. These proceedings would “attach” (or appropriate) any debts that Shanghai Chong Kee owed to Artison. Thus if SCK succeeded in these garnishee applications, effectively Shanghai Chong Kee (“garnishee”) would have to directly pay SCK (“judgment creditor”) any monies that Shanghai Chong Kee owed Artison (“judgment debtor”), up to the limit of the court-approved amounts.
In the interests of fairness: Glaziers Engineering Pte Ltd v WCS Engineering Construction Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 66
In the construction industry, a payment dispute between a contractor and sub-contractor may be submitted for adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security Payment Act. However, the adjudicator’s decision may be set aside if, during the adjudication process, there is a breach of natural justice which causes prejudice to at least one of the parties. In Glaziers Engineering Pte Ltd v WCS Engineering Construction Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 66, the Court of Appeal considered when a breach of natural justice would occur, and when such a breach would be considered prejudicial.
Justifiable Loss of Confidence in Management: Douglas Foo Peow Yong v ERC Prime II Pte Ltd and another appeal and other matters [2018] SGCA 67
Under section 254(1)(i) of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed), the court may order the winding up of a company where misconduct by the company’s director creates a “justifiable loss of confidence” in his/her management of the company. However, even if such a ground for winding up is established, the court retains “residual discretion” to decline to grant such an order. In Douglas Foo Peow Yong v ERC Prime II Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 67, the Court of Appeal discussed when such justifiable loss of confidence might occur, and how the courts should exercise their residual discretion.
The Principle of Fairness in Criminal Trials: Mui Jia Jun v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 59
In Mui Jia Jun v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 59, the Court of Appeal upheld the fundamental principle that an accused person should know with certainty, and thus have a full opportunity to meet, the case advanced against him by the Prosecution. For instance, where the Prosecution advances a composite case comprising several facets, the Prosecution should make it explicit if it is seeking a conviction based on any individual facet.
Presumption vs Proof: Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 62
In Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 62, the Court of Appeal clarified the application of the presumptions under sections 17 and 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (“MDA”), which relate to a presumption of trafficking (s17); presumption of possession (s18(1)); and presumption of knowledge (s18(2)). Here, the offenders were convicted by the High Court of drug trafficking offences under the MDA; their appeals to the Court of Appeal were based in part on rebutting these presumptions. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals for, inter alia, failing to rebut the presumptions.
Adri Anton Kalangie v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 40
When courts issue decisions establishing or clarifying sentencing guidelines, a concern is whether these guidelines should only be applied prospectively (known as “the doctrine of prospective overruling”), and if so what that prospectivity entails. In Adri Anton Kalangie v PP [2018] SGCA 40, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) held that although as a general rule, decisions establishing or clarifying sentencing guidelines will apply both retroactively as well as prospectively, the court laying down the guidelines may, in an exceptional case, state that such guidelines will only come into effect from a specific date. In such a case, the guidelines should apply to all offenders sentenced after the date of the decision, regardless of when they had committed the underlying offence. However, they would not apply to the actual offender in the decision.
Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan [2018] SGHC 148
In Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan [2018] SGHC 148, the Singapore High Court (“HC”) clarified the sentencing framework for offenders convicted of multiple offences. The main issue was whether concurrent or consecutive sentences should be meted out to an offender who had been convicted of multiple unrelated offences.
Defining the Jurisdiction of Family Justice Courts: UDA v UDB and another [2018] SGCA 20
In a divorce, multiple parties – including the spouses and third parties – may claim ownership of an alleged matrimonial asset. In UDA v UDB and another [2018] SCGA 20, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) held that family justice courts, which hear disputes over matrimonial assets, had the jurisdiction (i.e. authority to hear and determine a dispute brought before it) to decide only the claims of the divorcing spouses. They did not have the jurisdiction to decide claims by a third party (i.e. anyone other than the divorcing spouses) over property which was alleged by one or both spouses to be a matrimonial asset. Instead, such third party claims had to be determined in separate legal proceedings.
Singapore Patent Protection – Rejecting the Doctrine of Equivalents: Lee Tat Cheng v Maka GPS Technologies Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 18
In the recent case of Lee Tat Cheng v Maka GPS Technologies Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 18, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) addressed an issue concerning patent construction: whether Singapore should adopt the approach taken by the UK Supreme Court in Actavis UK Limited v Eli Lilly and Company [2017] UKSC 48 (“Actavis”), which reformulated the UK approach to patent construction and infringement.
Unpacking the Courier Exception in the Misuse of Drugs Act: Zainudin bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 8
When is a drug trafficker who claims to be a mere ‘courier’ not merely a ‘courier’? The Court of Appeal addressed this question in Zainudin bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 8. The issue was whether a drug trafficker who divided and repacked drugs was merely “transporting, sending or delivering a controlled drug” under s 33B(2)(a)(iii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), and hence eligible for discretionary life imprisonment (rather than the death penalty) under this so-called “courier exception”.
smulexicon.com 