• 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

    05:46 AM Hairul Hakkim (Justices’ Law Clerk, Supreme Court, Singapore) and Kevin Ho Hin Tat (Practice Trainee, WongPartnership LLP)

    The end of the “doctors know best” era – from medical paternalism to patient autonomy

    When can a doctor be sued for giving negligent medical advice? The principles in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Authority [1957] 1 WLR 582 together with the addendum in Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232 (collectively, the “Bolam-Bolitho” test) have long governed the standard of care to be met by doctors. Under this test, a doctor would not be negligent if his conduct ca...

  • postimage

    06:38 AM Hairul Hakkim (Justices’ Law Clerk, Supreme Court, Singapore) & Kevin Ho Hin Tat (Practice Trainee, WongPartnership LLP)

    Genetic affinity as a novel remedy for wrongful fertilisation – a case of assessing the incalculable? ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others [2017] SGCA 20

    In what has been described by the Court of Appeal (“the Court”) as “possibly one of the most difficult” cases thus far, the Court of Appeal held in the decision of ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others [2017] SGCA 20 (“ACB v Thomson”) that the parents of a child born out of medical negligence cannot claim as damages the full costs of raising the child (the “no upkeep costs” rule). However, the ...

  • postimage

    10:09 AM 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 ...

  • postimage

    03:12 AM Benjamin Tham (BSc (National University of Singapore), LLB (Nottingham)); Yuen Kit Kuan (LLB (Nottingham))

    You Can Run but You Can’t Hide: Storey, David Ian Andrew v Planet Arkadia Pte Ltd and others [2016] SGHCR 7

    Generally, under the Rules of Court (“ROC”), personal service is only required for all originating processes (i.e. writs and originating summons), unless such service is excepted under any particular rule or statutory enactment or an alternative method of service is authorised (see O 10 rr 1 & 5 ROC read with O 62 r 1(1) ROC). Unfortunately, litigants do not live in an ideal world and attempts at ...