• postimage

    11:57 AM Justin Tan (Sheridan Fellow, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore)

    Policy considerations when interpreting tax statutes: Zhao Hui Fang v Commissioner of Stam Duties [2017] SGHC 105

    What weight should judges give to tax policy considerations when interpreting a tax statute? In Zhao Hui Fang and others v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [2017] SGHC 105 (“Zhao”), the High Court answered, almost in a whisper, “not very much”. In this comment, I summarise the case, demonstrate how the court gave little weight to tax policy considerations and argue for more weight to be given to tax p...

  • postimage

    08:15 AM Kevin Ho Hin Tat (Practice Trainee, WongPartnership LLP) and Ernest Wong Changyan (Practice Trainee, David Lim & Partners LLP)

    Whither punishment and deterrence in contract law? Examining the rejection of punitive damages and its implications on the penalty rule

    Can a person be punished for breaching a contract? What is the role of punishment in contract law? These were difficult issues which the Singapore Court of Appeal (“the Court”) painted as going straight to the “heart of contract law” in PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd and another appeal [2017] SGCA 26 (“Airtrust”) (at [1]). The Court held as a general rule that punit...

  • postimage

    07:18 PM Lim Ren Jun (Principal, Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow.) and Victor Looi (Practice Trainee, Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow.)

    Guidance on the Scope of the Parallel Importation Defence under the Trade Marks Act

    In the recent decision of Samsonite IP Holdings Sarl v An Sheng Trading Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 18, the Singapore High Court shed light on an area of trade mark law that previously received scant attention before the local courts. The key statutory provision in question was section 29 of the Trade Marks Act (the "Act"), which sets out the parallel importation defence to trade mark infringement: "a reg...

  • postimage

    06:25 PM Leong Hoi Seng Victor (Justices’ Law Clerk, Supreme Court, Singapore) & Zhuang Changzhong (Practice Trainee, Harry Elias Partnership LLP)

    Yap Son On v Ding Pei Zhen clarified Contractual Interpretation but left questions about Extrinsic Evidence and the Starting Points for Interpretation

    In Yap Son On v Ding Pei Zhen [2016] SGCA 68 (“Yap Son On”), the Court of Appeal found that ‘19%’ of a certain number of shares could not be reinterpreted as an absolute amount of 5.5m shares. This note briefly explores the Court’s approach in coming to that conclusion. While Yap Son On successfully consolidated the approaches to contractual interpretation, it left behind the problems of how this ...

  • postimage

    04:04 PM Tan Tian Hui (Practice Trainee, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) and Jason Teo (Legal Trainee, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)

    A distinction without a difference: L Capital Jones Ltd v Maniach Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 3

    Order 57, Rule 9A(5) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev. Ed.) (“the Rule”) provides: “A respondent who, not having appealed from the decision of the Court below, desires to contend on the appeal that the decision of that Court should be varied in the event of an appeal being allowed in whole or in part, or that the decision of that Court should be affirmed on grounds other than those relied ...