• postimage

    11:40 PM Darius Chan (Ascendant Legal LLC, in association with Norton Rose Fulbright Singapore)

    Have the Singapore Courts Faltered in the Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements? TMT Co Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2017] SGHC 21

    In TMT Co Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2017] SGHC 21, the Singapore High Court took the view that an arbitration clause did not meet the prima facie standard to warrant a stay of court proceedings because it designated an inapplicable arbitral institution. Commentators have suggested that the decision is “surprising” and out of line with the prevailing judicial policy of upholding arbitr...

  • 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

    01:04 AM Tan Zhi Xiang (LLB, King's College London)

    Fairness for Divorcing Homemakers? – TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matter [2017] SGCA 15

    It has long been recognised that marriage is a partnership of equals. As the Court of Appeal noted in NK v NL [2007] 3 SLR(R) (“NK”) “[t]he contributions of both spouses are equally recognised whether he or she concentrates on the economics or homemaking role (NK at [20]). However, how does one give effect to this principle when dividing matrimonial assets in a divorce? The different methodologies...

  • 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

    06:09 PM Leong Hoi Seng Victor (Justices’ Law Clerk, Supreme Court, Singapore)

    The Minority’s Approach to Statutory Interpretation in AG v Ting Choon Meng better accords with the Interpretation Act

    In AG v Ting Choon Meng [2017] SGCA 6, a majority of the Court of Appeal found that section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) (“PFHA”) could not be invoked by the Government. The minority found otherwise. The main difficulty was that section 15 was a remedy available to “subject[s]”, while the other remedies in the PFHA were only limited to “victim[s]”. The question ...