In Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan  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.
The Income Tax Board of Review (“ITBR”) decision in the 2016 case of GBG v The Comptroller of Income Tax (“GBG”) has shed some light on the conditions that must be fulfilled before the costs of debt may be deducted against taxable income. More importantly, it establishes the legal principle that whether expenditure is deemed capital or revenue in nature depends on the purpose of the underlying transaction ab initio, regardless of whether or not the purpose of that underlying transaction was subsequently realised.
The extent of auditors’ liability in negligence has, on the whole, been a settled area of law, stemming from the important English case of Caparo Industries Inc v Dickman (“Caparo”). The decision in Caparo with respect to negligent audit work has been followed in Singapore and other Commonwealth countries such as Australia and Canada. Nonetheless, with the benefit of legal advice, disclaimers of liability limiting auditor liability to the audit clients have crept into auditors’ reports.