• postimage

    10:26 AM Jasper Hayden Chan (LL.M. (Nott Trent); LL.B. , Singapore Management University)

    All Of The Obligations, None Of The Rights – Who Will Step Up For The Step-parents?

    This article aims to review the legal status of a step-parent in Singapore, to embark on a cross-jurisdictional analysis and hopes to propose some ideas for legal review on this under-discussed issue....

  • postimage

    11:03 PM Kee En Chong (Attorney-General’s Chambers, Singapore)

    Causation in medical negligence: Armstrong, Carol Ann v Quest Laboratories Pte Ltd [2020] 1 SLR 133; [2019] SGCA 75

    The philosopher Immanuel Kant once observed that while human minds cannot help but think in terms of cause-and-effect, the true nature of causation remains shrouded from our understanding. ...

  • postimage

    04:59 PM Shriram Jayakumar (Associate, Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow)

    When will the reflection show: Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31

    When a defendant has wronged a company, the Reflective Loss Principle bars a shareholder of the company from bringing a personal action against the defendant to recover a reduction in the value of his shares. Such a factual matrix arose in the English Court of Appeal’s decision in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (No 2) [1982] Ch 204 (“Prudential”), which is widely regarded...

  • postimage

    01:39 PM Ben Chester Cheong (LLM (Cambridge); LLB (1st Class Hons) (Exeter); Lecturer of Law, SUSS) and Poh Chee Eng (BSc (Hons) (Essex); Dip, Law & Management, Temasek Polytechnic; JD Candidate, SUSS)

    Oppression – personal wrongs or corporate wrongs: A commentary on Ascend Field Pte Ltd and others v Tee Wee Sien and another appeal [2020] SGCA 14

    Historically, an aggrieved minority shareholder, “X”, is faced with two primary conundrum, (a) X does not have standing to sue an errant director or require the board to account as a result of the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 (“Foss v Harbottle”); and (b) companies operate on the basis of majority rule (see Pearlie Koh, Company Law (LexisNexis, 2017) at para 6.5). The law has come a ...

  • postimage

    03:06 PM Tan Tian Hui (LLB (First Class Hons) (Bristol), B.C.L. (Oxon), Associate, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)

    Mareva injunctions in support of foreign court proceedings: Bi Xiaoqiong v China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation) and CMED Technologies Ltd [2019] SGCA 50

    In Bi Xiaoqiong v China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation) and CMED Technologies Ltd [2019] SGCA 50, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) considered whether the plaintiff has to satisfy a third requirement – that the cause of action against the defendant must also terminate in a judgment rendered by the court that issues the injunction (the “Forum Requirement”). The coram of five judges held that th...