News

In the recent decision of Hai Jiao 1306 Ltd and others v Yaw Chee Siew [2020] SGHC(I) 03 (“HJ1306 v YCS”), the Singapore International Commercial Court drew an adverse inference against the defendant for his repeated breaches of discovery orders.

Read More

Is an arbitrator entitled to decline to hear evidence from all of a party’s witness based on his interpretation of the arbitral rules? This issue arose for consideration in the High Court decision of CBP v CBS [2020] SGHC 23 (“CBP v CBS”), and on the facts of the case, the High Court set aside the arbitral award for breach of natural justice.  

Read More

In Daisho Development Singapore Pte Ltd v Architects 61 Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 16 (“Daisho v Architects”), the High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for losses allegedly resulting from negligent misrepresentations made by the defendant. This article will focus on some of the reasons why the High Court found that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff.

Read More

In The Civil Aviation Authority v Jet2.Com Ltd, R(on the Application of) [2019] EWCA 35 (“CAA v Jet2”), the EWCA applied the dominant purpose test on the question of whether legal advice privilege covered email communications between multiple persons which included amongst them a lawyer.

Read More

In the recent England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) decision of Raiffeisen Bank International AG v Asia Coal Energy Ventures Ltd & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 11 (“Raiffeisen”), Males LJ (with whom Baker and Lewison LLJ agreed) held that documents pertaining to instructions which the respondent firm of solicitors received from its clients are privileged and do not have to be disclosed. This update summarises the key statements made by Males LJ in the Raiffeisen decision.

Read More

In the recent England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) decision of Raiffeisen Bank International AG v Asia Coal Energy Ventures Ltd & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 11 (“Raiffeisen”), Males LJ (with whom Baker and Lewison LLJ agreed) held that documents pertaining to instructions which the respondent firm of solicitors received from its clients are privileged and do not have to be disclosed. This update summarises the key statements made by Males LJ in the Raiffeisen decision.

Read More

In thhe recent decision of Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd [2019] SGHC 291 (“Sun Travels v Hilton”), the High Court allowed the examination of judgment debtor in relation to assets in a jurisdiction where the judgment could not be enforced.

Read More

In BNA v BNB and another [2019] SGCA 84 (“BNA v BNB”), the Singapore Court of Appeal allowed (to an extent) an appeal against the decision of the Singapore High Court on the issue of the parties’ choice of seat of the arbitration.

Read More

Organisations who engage external vendors to develop websites for them have to be aware of the data protection obligations owed under the Personal Data Protection Act (“PDPA”). This is especially so in relation to client’s personal data, as exemplified in the recent decision by the Personal Data Protection Commission (“PDPC”) in EU Holidays Pte. Ltd. [2019] SGPDPC 38 (“EU Holidays”).

Read More

Is the three-month time limit stipulated in Art 34(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) a strict time limit? And when does the time begin to run if a party has made a request under Art 33 of the Model Law? These issues were considered and addressed by the High Court in BRQ and another v BRS and another and another matter [2019] SGHC 260 (“BRQ v BRS”).  

Read More