• postimage

    03:44 PM Loh Kai Loon (Counsel, Ashurst ADTLaw)

    Of long-form confirmations and closing out for failing to sign an ISDA

    On 4 May 2018, the Singapore International Commercial Court ("SICC") delivered its judgment in Macquarie Bank Ltd v Graceland Industry Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC(I) 05. The case was heard by Justice Sir Henry Bernard Eder, a former judge of the English High Court. This case is important because the SICC discussed the execution of an OTC derivative transaction, an Additional Termination Event where no ISD...

  • postimage

    10:58 PM Christopher Zheng (LL.B., National University of Singapore, LL.M. (Corporate), New York University)

    Personal Liability of Directors for their Company's Contractual Breaches and Torts: Recent Developments

    While a company is a separate legal entity from its members, shareholders and directors (Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 at [32], [34] ("Gabriel Peter")), decisions of a company are often made through its board of directors. Where a company breaches its contract with, or commits a tort against, an external party under the direction of its board, are the directors perso...

  • postimage

    10:22 PM Leo Zhi Wei (LLB (London School of Economics), BCL (Oxon), Advocate & Solicitor; Supreme Court of Singapore)

    Dishonest spouses beware: Developments in the law on fraudulent non-disclosure in matrimonial proceedings

    The decision in BMI v BMJ [2017] SGHC 112 (“HC”), which was affirmed on appeal in BMI v BMJ [2017] SGCA 63 (“CA”), marks a watershed development in matrimonial law (both decisions will be collectively referred to as “BMI”). BMI establishes the principle that an ex-spouse who has been the victim of fraudulent non-disclosure during divorce proceedings will have the right to set aside the existing di...

  • postimage

    05:47 PM Darren Low (LL.B. (Lond), LL.M. (Cambridge)) and Daniel Boon (LL.B. (Durham), LL.M. (Cambridge))

    Pre-Contractual Payments and Liability in Unjust Enrichment: Benzline Auto Pte Ltd v Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 2

    The law of unjust enrichment is flourishing and has come a long way since Lord Goff’s seminal decision in Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1988] UKHL 12. The deluge of decisions from the highest echelons of the English and Singaporean Courts has yet to ebb. In the first month of 2018 alone, the legal community has had the benefit of two Singapore Court of Appeal (“CA”) decisions, Ochroid Trading Ltd ...

  • postimage

    04:10 PM Victor Looi (LLB, BBM(Finance), Singapore Management University)

    The Use of Similar Colour Schemes, Layouts, and Allegedly Deceptive Geographical References in Trade Marks

    In the recent decision of Morinaga Nyugyo Kabushiki Kaisha (Morinaga Milk Industry Co., Ltd.) v. Starbucks Corporation D/B/A Starbucks Coffee Company [2017] SGIPOS 18, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore explored two intriguing issues concerning trade mark opposition proceedings: whether a trade mark proprietor can oppose the registration of a later competing mark because the latter shar...