<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<?xml-stylesheet title="XSL_formatting" type="text/xsl" href="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/legal/ln2/slw/rss/commentaries.xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:article="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/legal/ln2/slw/rss/">

<channel>
<title>Commentaries by SLW</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/</link>
<description>Commentaries of the last 3 months</description>
<language>en-gb</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2010, Singapore Government, Singapore Academy of Law.</copyright>
<docs>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/</docs>
<managingEditor>prospector@sal.org.sg</managingEditor>



<item>
<title>SHC sets aside arbitration award upholding agreement directed towards stifling criminal proceedings</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68406.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SHC ruled in &lt;em&gt;AJT v AJU&lt;/em&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGHC 201&lt;/nobr&gt; that an aribitration award which upheld an agreement&#160;directed towards the stifling of criminal proceedings in respect of a non-compoundable offence, should be set aside as the agreement was illegal.&#160;To hold otherwise would&#160;contravene public policy and breach international comity.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Update, Drew &amp; Napier LLC, July, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100729</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Drew &amp; Napier LLC, July</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68406</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68406.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Public policy arguments and Mareva injunction in proceedings for the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68359.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SHC in &lt;i&gt;Strandore Invest A/S and others v Soh Kim Wat&lt;/i&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGHC 151&lt;/nobr&gt; reiterated the rule that courts have very limited powers of review over such arbitration awards.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>CNP Update, Colin Ng &amp; Partners, Jul, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100726</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>CNP Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Colin Ng &amp; Partners, Jul</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68359</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68359.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Honest concurrent use under Hong Kong and Singapore trade mark law</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68360.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>This article highlights the concept of &#8220;honest concurrent use&#8221; by analysing a judgment passed by the Court in Hong Kong and examining the corresponding position under Singapore law.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>CNP Update, Colin Ng &amp; Partners, Jul, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100726</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>CNP Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Colin Ng &amp; Partners, Jul</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68360</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68360.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SCA holds co-owners must act together in collective sales</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68132.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Singapore Court of Appeal in &lt;i&gt;Goh Teh Lee v Lim Li Pheng Maria&lt;/i&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGCA 18&lt;/nobr&gt; looked at the differences between joint tenants and tenants in common in the context of a collective sale.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100712</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68132</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68132.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC holds contract avoided due to common mistake about fundamental and essential point</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68117.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Singapore High Court in &lt;em&gt;Norwest Holdings Pte Ltd (in Liquidation) v Newport Mining Ltd&lt;/em&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGHC 144&lt;/nobr&gt; found that a common mistake as to a fundamental and essential point of the contract voided it. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100709</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68117</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68117.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SCA holds sole director of company personally liable for costs</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68094.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Singapore Court of Appeal in &lt;em&gt;DB Trustees (Hong Kong) Ltd v Consult Asia Pte Ltd&lt;/em&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGCA 21&lt;/nobr&gt; held that the sole director of the defendant was to&#160;jointly and severally bear the costs of the appeals with the company. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100708</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68094</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68094.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC declines leave to bring common law derivation action</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68098.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Singapore High Court in &lt;em&gt;Sinwa SS (HK) Co Ltd v Morten Innhaug&lt;/em&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGHC 157&lt;/nobr&gt; considered the procedural and substantive issues in relation to bringing a common law derivative action in Singapore on behalf of a non-Singaporean company against a director of the company for breach of the director's fiduciary duties. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100708</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68098</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68098.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC: Examining the opt-in nature of the electronic discovery practice direction</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67873.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Practice Direction No 3 of 2009 deals with the adoption of electronic discovery and inspection. The SHC case of &lt;em&gt;Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen&lt;/em&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGHC 125&lt;/nobr&gt; clarified the function and application of this Practice Direction. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100624</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67873</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67873.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC found former CFO liable to pay civil penalty to MAS for insider trading</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67802.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SHC in &lt;em&gt;Monetary Authority of Singapore v Lew Chee Fai Kevin&lt;/em&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGHC 166&lt;/nobr&gt; found a former senior executive of a public listed company liable to pay a civil penalty to the MAS for contravening the insider trading provisions under the Securities and Futures Act. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Update, Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100616</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67802</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67802.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SCA finds easement abandoned and no longer subsisting under s 46(1) of Land Titles Act</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67763.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SCA in &lt;i&gt;Lian Kok Hong v Lee Choi Kheong &amp; Ors&lt;/i&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGCA 19&lt;/nobr&gt; held that a long acquiescence by the successive owners of a plot of land to the right of way over a neighbouring strip being fenced off, amounted to acquiescence to the right of way being rendered unusable and constituted a conscious act of abandonment.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100614</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67763</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67763.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC considers insurance claims by main contractor in relation to injury of workman employed by sub-contractor</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67728.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SHC in &lt;em&gt;Mohammed Shahid Late Mahabubur Rahman v Lim Keenly Builders Pte Ltd&lt;/em&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGHC 142&lt;/nobr&gt; dealt with a dispute which brought to light the adequacy of insurance policies arranged by main contractors to purportedly cover all situations arising from injuries to workmen employed for a construction project. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100610</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67728</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67728.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC analyses scope of principle that release of joint debtor releases all other joint debtors</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67712.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SHC in the case of &lt;em&gt;Econ Piling Pte Ltd &amp; Anor v Sambo E&amp;C Pte Ltd and another matter&lt;/em&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGHC 120&lt;/nobr&gt; considered the issue whether the joint liability of Company A&#160;as a partner of Company B&#160;in a joint venture partnership was released as a result of an arrangement which released the debts and liabilities of&#160;Company B.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100609</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67712</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67712.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC holds resolution approving bonus entitlements invalid where director not acting in best interest of company</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67713.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SHC in &lt;em&gt;Tan Hup Thye v Refco (Singapore) Pte Ltd (in members' voluntary liquidation)&lt;/em&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGHC 149&lt;/nobr&gt; held that&#160;the plaintiff was not entitled to bonus payments, whether by virtue of a directors' resolution to make such payments procured by the plaintiff, or via a contractual right of employment.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100609</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67713</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67713.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC sets aside arbitral award on ground of breach of natural justice</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67670.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Singapore High Court, in &lt;em&gt;Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd&lt;/em&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGHC 80&lt;/nobr&gt;, set aside an arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator&#160;had committed&#160;a breach of natural justice for disregarding a party's submissions.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100604</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67670</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67670.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SCA invalidates removal of director due to non-compliance with company's articles of association</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67382.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SCA in Thio Keng Poon v Thio Syn Pyn &amp; Ors &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGCA 16&lt;/nobr&gt; held that non-compliance with a requirement in a company's articles of association to make a request to a director to vacate his office before removing him as a director was a substantive irregularity that had invalidated the removal of the director.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, April, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100513</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, April</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67382</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67382.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC holds customer disagreeing with terms of bank's letter should raise objection and not keep silent</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67398.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SHC in &lt;em&gt;Giuffrida Luigi v Julius Baer (Singapore) Ltd (in members' voluntary liquidation) &amp; Anor&lt;/em&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGHC 96&lt;/nobr&gt; held that a customer who kept silent was estopped from claiming against a bank where the latter had informed the customer that his account would be transferred to the bank's holding company unless the bank&#160;had been&#160;notified by the customer of his objection within a given timeline.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100513</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67398</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67398.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC: Defendant successfully invokes Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act in counterclaim</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67392.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SHC, in the case of Carriernet Global Ltd v Abkey Pte Ltd &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGHC 104&lt;/nobr&gt;, granted judgment in favour of a party who relied on section 2(1) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act to enforce a contract to which it was not a party.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100507</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67392</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67392.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>UK Supreme Court holds contract arose between parties despite "subject to contract" clause</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67393.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The UK Supreme Court in RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Muller GmbH &amp; Company KG (UK Production) &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] UKSC 14&lt;/nobr&gt; considered a dispute over work carried out and equipment supplied without the completion of a written contract.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100507</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67393</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67393.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC considers locus standi and bank's duty of secrecy in relation to discovery order</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67395.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SHC in &lt;em&gt;VisionHealthOne Corp Pte Ltd v HD Holdings Pte Ltd &amp; Ors&lt;/em&gt; &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGHC 78&lt;/nobr&gt; considered the issues of &lt;em&gt;locus standi&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;res judicata&lt;/em&gt; in a challenge to a discovery order and the extent of a bank's duty of secrecy when faced with such an order.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100507</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67395</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67395.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC considers contractors' duties in the context of contractual breach</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67384.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SHC in Animal Concerns Research &amp; Education Society v ANA Contractor Pte Ltd &amp; Anor &lt;nobr&gt;[2010] SGHC 85&lt;/nobr&gt; found that the parties had a contract which the defendant had breached. As a result, the defendant was liable for any loss or damage the plaintiff suffered.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100506</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67384</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67384.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Singapore ratifies the UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68387.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Singapore ratified the UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts on 7 July 2010. The Convention seeks to facilitate global electronic commerce trade by harmonising laws amongst countries and provide a set of comprehensive rules relating to the use of communications in the negotiation and formation of international contracts.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jul, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100728</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jul</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68387</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68387.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act: When a claim for payment is not a payment claim</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68313.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>This update looks at the legislation governing the construction industry and the recent case law developments thereunder.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>CNP Update, Colin Ng &amp; Partners, Jul, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100722</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>CNP Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Colin Ng &amp; Partners, Jul</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68313</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68313.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Act 2010: An Overview</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68315.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>On 18 May 2010, Parliament passed the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill, which comes into force on 15 July 2010. It imposes stricter rules to streamline and clarify the collective sale process.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>CNP Update, Colin Ng &amp; Partners, Jul, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100722</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>CNP Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Colin Ng &amp; Partners, Jul</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68315</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68315.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Electronic Transactions Act: Repealed and re-enacted</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68205.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Electronic Transactions Act has been repealed and re-enacted. It seeks to provide for the security and use of electronic transactions and to align Singapore laws on electronic transactions with the UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jul, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100721</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jul</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68205</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68205.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Criminal Procedure Code 2010 becomes law</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68184.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Criminal Procedure Code 2010 was passed in Parliament on 19 May 2010 which saw the introduction of major changes after extensive consultations with government agencies and stakeholders in the legal industry. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jul, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100715</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jul</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68184</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68184.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>MOF conducts public consultation on draft GST (Amendment) Bill 2010</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68135.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Ministry of Finance conducted a public consultation in relation to the draft GST (Amendment) Bill which covers Budget 2010 changes as well as other changes to tax policies and administration as a result of an on-going review of the GST regime.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100712</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68135</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68135.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>MOF conducts public consultation on draft Property Tax (Amendment) Bill 2010</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68136.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Ministry of Finance conducted a public consultation in relation to the draft Property Tax (Amendment) Bill which aims to improve tax administration and clarity to taxpayers with regard to the Property Tax Act.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100712</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68136</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68136.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act: Pitfalls in drafting payment claims under the Act</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67811.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>A key component of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act is the introduction of adjudication as a statutory form of dispute resolution which emphasises speedy decisions as compared to arbitration or litigation. Timelines for adjudication are short and failure to comply with them may lead to serious consequences for the defaulting party. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, June, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100617</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, June</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67811</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67811.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Mental Capacity Act: Lasting power of attorney</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67746.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Mental Capacity Act came into force on 1 March 2010. A key feature of the Act is the introduction of&#160;a statutory mechanism&#160;called the&#160;lasting power of attorney.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100611</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67746</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67746.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill 2010: Changes relating to collective sales</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67747.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill was passed on 18 May 2010 to improve the process of collective sales, taking into account competing interests. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100611</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67747</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67747.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Electronic Transactions Bill: Passed in Parliament</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67729.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Electronic Transactions Bill was passed in Parliament on 19 May 2010, paving the way for a conducive legal framework for e-commerce trade in Singapore. The Bill repeals and re-enacts the current Electronic Transactions Act.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100610</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67729</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67729.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Electronic Transactions Bill: Introduced in Parliament</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67657.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Electronics Transactions Bill was introduced in Parliament&#160;on 24&#160;April 2010. Once passed, it will repeal and replace the Electronic Transactions Act. The legal scheme for dealing with electronic transactions as embodied in the Bill is largely similar to that contained in the Act.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Legal News, WongPartnership LLP, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100603</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>WongPartnership LLP, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67657</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67657.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Securities and Futures Regulations: MAS seeks comments on draft Regulations</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67450.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The MAS is seeking comments on the draft Securities and Futures (Disclosure of Interests) Regulations 2010 and the draft Securities and Futures (Offers of Investments) (Shares and Debentures) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 which will affect disclosure regimes for interests of substantial shareholders, directors and CEOs, and the offering regime of shares/units and debentures.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100513</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67450</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67450.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SIAC Arbitration Rules 2010 come into effect from 1 July 2010</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68338.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>After extensive consultation with practitioners, arbitrators and other stakeholders, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) released its Arbitration Rules 2010, which came into operation on 1 July 2010. The 2010 Rules retains the foundation of the 2007 Rules, while adding new rules to facilitate more efficient and effective arbitration at the SIAC.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jul, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100723</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jul</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68338</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68338.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Our (banking) secrets are safe for now</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68239.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>As Singapore strives to be a leading financial centre in the region, banking secrecy laws have become increasingly important. This update looks at the legislation and case law that governs this area. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Rodyk Reporter, Rodyk &amp; Davidson LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100721</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Rodyk Reporter</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rodyk &amp; Davidson LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68239</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68239.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>The importance of design registration &#8211; Design, register or lose!</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68215.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>While many products are designed at a high cost, their manufacturers tend not to seek registration of these designs due to various reasons. This update&#160;discusses the legal protection afforded in this area of intellectual property. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Rodyk Reporter, Rodyk &amp; Davidson LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100716</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Rodyk Reporter</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rodyk &amp; Davidson LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68215</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68215.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>The Singapore International Arbitration Centre issues a revised set of rules</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68185.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>&lt;font size="3" face="Times New Roman"&gt;The SIAC Rules 2010 has been released and comes into effect on 1 July 2010. The new Rules contain a new Schedule of Fees, a new Expedited Procedure (new Rule 5), a new rule on the appointment of an Emergency Arbitrator if interim relief is required, the removal of rules relating to the drawing up of Memorandum of Issues, amongst others. &#8230;&lt;/font&gt;</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal News, WongPartnership LLP, Jul, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100715</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>WongPartnership LLP, Jul</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68185</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68185.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SGX responds to feedback received from consultation paper on revised requirements for direct business trades</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68146.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Earlier this year, the SGX conducted a public consultation on its proposals to revise the requirements for direct business trades. There were concerns raised by market participants about the potential adverse impact of raising the direct business threshold on trading costs, market liquidity, amongst others.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Financial Services Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100713</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Financial Services Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68146</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68146.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>IRAS Consultation Paper on Mergers and Acquisitions Scheme</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68133.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>It was announced in the Singapore Budget 2010 that a new Merger and Acquisition Allowance and stamp duty remission will be introduced to defray the costs of acquiring companies.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100712</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68133</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68133.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>New MOU between Singapore and New South Wales Supreme Courts on Questions of Foreign Law</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68118.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>With the growing cooperation between judges from different nations&#160;in tackling&#160;issues arising under foreign law, the Singapore and New South Wales Supreme Courts signed an MOU to work closely where such&#160;occasions arise. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100709</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68118</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68118.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>New Productivity and Innovation Credit for Investments in Design scheme launched</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68119.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Pursuant to the anncouncement made in the Singapore&#160;Budget 2010, the Productivity and Innovation Credit for Investments in Design scheme was&#160;implemented on 1 June 2010. The scheme allows tax deductions for companies that invest in the innovation and development of well-designed products. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100709</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68119</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68119.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Recent developments: Company law; international arbitration; mergers &amp; acquisition; and GST</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67840.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>This executive summary features developments in appointment and removal of directors, validity of an arbitration agreement, sale of a company, and public consultation of the GST (Amendment) Bill. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal News, WongPartnership LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100630</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>WongPartnership LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67840</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67840.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>MAS revises guidelines on capital markets services licence</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67839.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The MAS recently revised its Guidelines on Criteria for the Grant of a Capital Markets Services Licence and Representative&#8217;s Licence to take into account the emphasis on good corporate governance standards in Singapore. The application criteria for a person wishing to carry out real estate investment trust management have also been clarified.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Update, Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100621</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67839</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67839.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Competition Commission of Singapore: Infringement decisions issued on whistle-blowing and first abuse of dominance</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67815.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Competition Commission of Singapore ("CSS") recently issued two infringement decisions relating to cases involving bid-rigging activities and&#160;abuse of dominance. This commentary discusses the competition law whistle-blowing leniency regime in Singapore and the application of competition law to all businesses.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100617</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67815</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67815.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>MAS seeks comments on proposed changes to fund management regulatory regime in Singapore</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67764.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>In April 2010, MAS issued a consultation paper proposing changes to Singapore's fund management regulatory regime, which seeks to enhance the supervisory oversight over entities currently operating under the&#160;exemption regime, and to raise the quality of players entering the fund management industry.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Financial Services Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100616</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Financial Services Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67764</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67764.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>New statutory board to be formed to raise professionalism of real estate agency industry</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67762.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The proposed Council for Estate Agencies was announced to raise the professionalism of the real estate industry and better safeguard consumer interests. The Bill establishing the Council will be introduced in Parliament in the second half of the year.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100614</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67762</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67762.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Simplified telecommunications dealer licensing and equipment registration framework with effect from 15 April 2010</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67745.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>IDA has implemented changes to simplify the telecommunication dealer licensing and equipment registration framework to reduce business costs for telecommunication licensees and create a more robust telecommunication market.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100611</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Apr</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67745</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67745.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Increase in employer CPF contribution rates from 1 September 2010</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67727.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Government will raise the employer CPF contribution rate by 1% in two steps: the first 0.5% increase will take place on 1 Septebmer 2010, with the other 0.5% on 1 March 2011. This increase is to help Singaporeans save more for their medical and retirement needs. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100610</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67727</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67727.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: AJR v AJS [2010] SGHC 199 (division of matrimonial assets)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68335.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The High Court set out a methodology which it used as a rough check on its exercise of discretion in the division of matrimonial assets.</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, Jul, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100723</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, Jul</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">68335</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/68335.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: Petroprod Ltd v Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 186 (whether insolvency claims arbitrable)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67999.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>In this case, concerning an application for a stay in favour of arbitration, the High Court considered the arbitrability of insolvency and insolvency-related claims.</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100702</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67999</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67999.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: Siemens AG v Holdrich Investment Ltd [2010] SGCA 23 (clarifications on natural forum doctrine)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67976.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Court clarified the &lt;i&gt;forum conveniens&lt;/i&gt; or natural forum doctrine in this case, which concerned the grant of leave for serving an originating process out of jurisdiction.</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100701</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67976</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67976.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: Lim Boon Keong v PP [2010] SGHC 179 (urine testing requirements under Misuse of Drugs Act)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67920.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>In this Magistrate&#8217;s Appeal against the appellant&#8217;s conviction for consuming norketamine, the Court was originally asked to decide a number of points of law relating to the offence of consumption under the Misuse of Drugs Act.</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100629</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67920</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67920.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: Chee Jok Heng Stephanie v Chang Yue Shoon [2010] SGHC 153 (fiduciary in breach may not have illegality defence)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67672.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>A person in breach of his fiduciary duty may not be allowed to rely on the defence of illegality to benefit from his breach.</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100608</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67672</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67672.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor [2010] SGCA 20 (whether mandatory death penalty constitutional)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67673.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Although certain types of colourable legislation will not be regarded as &#8220;law&#8221; under Art 9(1) of the Constitution, mandatory death penalty legislation is &#8220;law&#8221;.</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100604</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67673</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67673.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: Martek Biosciences Corp v Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 135 (admission of fresh evidence in patents appeal)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67595.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>&lt;span lang="EN-GB"&gt;The High Court held that the &lt;i&gt;Ladd v Marshall&lt;/i&gt; principles should apply where leave is sought to adduce fresh evidence in a patents revocation appeal.&lt;/span&gt;</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100527</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67595</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67595.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Public Prosecutor v Astro Bin Jakaria [2010] SGHC 131 (intoxication on provocation)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67596.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>&lt;span lang="EN-GB"&gt;The High Court held that the accused&#8217;s state of intoxication should be taken into account in the subjective determination of actual loss of self-control.&lt;/span&gt;</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100527</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67596</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67596.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: Goh Teh Lee v Lim Li Pheng Maria [2010] SGCA 18 (co-owners to act together in collective sales)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67549.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>&lt;span lang="EN-GB"&gt;The Court of Appeal&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span lang="EN-GB"&gt;held that all co-owners must act together to either support or oppose a proposed sale.&lt;/span&gt;</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100520</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67549</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67549.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd [2010] SGCA 15 (ordering of new trial when evidence improperly rejected)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67550.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>&lt;span lang="EN-GB"&gt;In this case, the Court of Appeal held that, if evidence was improperly rejected at trial, a new trial will be ordered if&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span lang="EN-GB"&gt;(a)&#160;the improperly rejected evidence would, if admitted, have a substantial and realistic prospect of making a meaningful difference to the outcome of the case, and (b)&#160;the appellate court is in no position to evaluate the improperly rejected evidence itself.&lt;/span&gt;</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100520</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67550</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67550.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: Gobinathan Devathasan v Singapore Medical Council [2010] SGHC 51 (professional misconduct arising from administering inappropriate treatment)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67535.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>&lt;span lang="EN-GB"&gt;The Court held that a decision of the Singapore Medical Council&#8217;s (&#8220;SMC&#8221;) Disciplinary Committee (&#8220;DC&#8221;) to convict&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span lang="EN-GB"&gt;Dr Gobinathan Devathasan was wrong in law.&lt;/span&gt;</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100519</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67535</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67535.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching [2010] SGCA 3 (privity of contract and restraint of trade)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67435.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>&lt;span lang="EN-GB"&gt;Circumstances under which a third party could rely on section 2(1)(b) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (&#8220;CRTPA&#8221;) to enforce a restraint of trade clause.&lt;/span&gt;</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100512</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67435</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67435.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: The "Asia Star" [2010] SGCA 12 (obligation to give notice when mitigating)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67420.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>An aggrieved party is required to notify the defaulting party of any action it proposes to take in order to mitigate its losses.</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100511</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67420</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67420.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>His Holiness Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj v Eastern Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1294 (QB) (Tort, Defamation): catchwords</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67816.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description></description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100617</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Tort - Defamation - Justiciability - Second defendant author of article entitled "Cult divides Sikh congregation in High Wycombe" published by first defendant in the Sikh Times - Claimant, a religious leader in India, alleging that article damaging to his reputation in the jurisdiction, particularly among Sikh communities - Whether applicability of defences of justification and fair comment to claims (among others) that claimant the leader of a cult and an imposter, and promoting blasphemy, justiciable - Whether court should rule upon religious doctrinal issues or intervene in regulation or governance of religious groups - Whether questions of faith or doctrinal opinion can be finally determined by methodology regularly brought to bear on conflicts of factual and expert evidence - Whether possible to isolate and resolve issues without referring to Sikh doctrines and traditions - Whether action should be stayed</article:cw1>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67816</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67816.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12 (Tort of negligence): commentary</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67761.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The High Court of Australia unanimously agreed that a patient cannot recover for the loss of chance of a better medical outcome unless it is shown, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she would have had a better outcome but for the doctor&#8217;s negligence. This Australian position is consistent with the English House of Lords&#8217; decisions in &lt;i&gt;Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;Gregg v Scott&lt;/i&gt;. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100614</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Tort - Negligence</article:cw1>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67761</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67761.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>E. &amp; J. Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited [2010] HCA 15 (Trade marks and trade names): catchwords</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67698.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description></description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100608</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Trade Marks and Trade Names - Removal of registration for "non-use" - Appellant US wine producing company purchased right to registered trade mark "BAREFOOT" - Licensee of trade mark from prior registered owner had sold wines under the trade mark "BAREFOOT" together with a stylised picture of a bare foot to German company that on-sold some of the wines to Australian company (the sub-buyer) for retail distribution in Australia - Respondent Australian beer producing company subsequently sold beers under trade mark "BAREFOOT RADLER" with stylised picture of a bare foot similar to appellants - In response to appellant's claim for infringement, respondent sought removal of appellant's registration of trade mark for non-use under Australian Trade Marks Act - Whether offer for sale and selling of wine under the trade mark by sub-buyer in Australia, without knowledge of appellant or prior owner and licensee of trade mark, constituted "use" by registered owner under relevant sections in the Act - In this regard, whether (i) said licensee of trade mark was authorised user; (ii) whether use of trade mark was "in good faith"; (iii) whether offer and sale of wines by sub-buyer was use "in the course of trade"; and (iv) whether use of trade mark "BAREFOOT" together with a stylised picture of a "barefoot" as opposed to simply the word "BAREFOOT" constituted use of the registered trade mark</article:cw1>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67698</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67698.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>John Alexander's Clubs Pty Limited v White City Tennis Club Limited [2010] HCA 19 (Trust, Constructive trust)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67699.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description></description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, Jun, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100608</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, Jun</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Trusts - Constructive Trusts - White City Tennis Club Ltd ("the Club") had been operating on leased and licensed premises, and desired to continue club activities on same premises even after owner of premises sells it - The Club entered into memorandum of agreement ("MOU") with John Alexander Clubs Pty Ltd ("JACS"), a sporting club premises development company, for JACS to obtain from owner or subsequent owner of land an option to purchase and exercise such option on behalf of company ("new club") to be formed by JACS, in which the Club's existing members could choose to become shareholders, conditional upon new club entering simultaneously into an operating agreement with another company ("new operating company") to be formed by JACS and granting a 99 year lease to the same; also to obtain option exercisable by the Club if JACS were unable or fail to exercise option - Subsequent series of agreements entered into between purchasers of land from owner, the Club and JACS - Last agreement ("3rd agreement") conferred option to purchase on JACS or JACS' nominee, and if JACS did not exercise option within stipulated period, the Club to be given the option to purchase; also the Club relinquished existing rights to lease and licence over land - 3rd agreement did not require JACS to exercise option on behalf of  new club or impose other conditions mentioned in MOU - New club and new operating company never formed - JACS' nominee subsequently exercised option pursuant to 3rd agreement - The Club alleged breach of fiduciary duty, equitable fraud and unconscionable conduct on part of JACS - Interpretation of terms in MOU and 3rd agreement - Whether MOU terms amount to joint venture between the Club and JACS - Legal significance of a joint venture - Whether MOU terms create a fiduciary relationship and/or constructive trust so that JACS or their nominee on exercising option, hold land on trust for the Club - Whether the Club's surrender of existing lease and licence over premises enabled grant of option to JACS - Whether terms in 3rd agreement inconsistent with terms in MOU supersede the latter</article:cw1>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67699</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67699.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Ludgater Holdings Ltd v Gerling Australia Insurance Co Pty Ltd [2010] NZSC 49 (Insurance, Third party rights against insurers legislation): catchwords</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67674.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description></description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100604</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Insurance - Third party rights against insurers legislation - Whether statute has extra-territorial effect - Domestic (NZ) third party suffering loss caused by foreign (Australian) insured formerly carrying on business in NZ - Insured party becoming insolvent - NZ statute permitting direct recovery by third party against liability insurance policy in such circumstances - Claim brought in NZ by third party - Whether statute applies where foreign (Australian) insurer and policy governed by foreign law and payable in Australia - Held that statute had no extra-territorial effect and did not confer rights on third party over the foreign insurance policy proceeds. [s 9, Law Reform Act 1936 (NZ), in pari materia with Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act (Cap 395, 1994 Rev Ed)]</article:cw1>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67674</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67674.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>R v Morelli 2010 SCC 8 (Criminal procedure and sentencing, Search warrants): catchwords</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67566.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description></description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100603</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Criminal Procedure and Sentencing - Search Warrants - Computer technician arriving unannounced at accused's house to install high-speed Internet connection ordered by accused - Accused at home with younger daughter aged three - Technician opening accused's web browser and noticing links to adult and child pornography sites in taskbar's 'Favourites' menu, including two labelled "Lolita Porn" and "Lolita XXX" - In room where computer located, technician also noticing home videos and webcam on tripod connected to videotape recorder which was pointed at toys and the child - Technician returning following morning to complete work, and finding room cleaned up: child's toys put away, videotapes no longer visible, webcam pointed at computer user's chair, and computer hard drive reformatted - Technician reporting what he noticed to social worker, who called police - Investigating police officer Constable O drafting an information to obtain a search warrant ('ITO') to search accused's computer and subsequently obtaining warrant - ITO making inferences about accused's likely behaviour based on generalisations made by B (police officer from Technical Crime Unit) and H (police officer said to have experience with child exploitation offences) about propensities of certain "types of offenders" to hoard and copy illegal images - ITO failing to state that "Lolita" links scattered among other links in 'Favourites' menu pointing to legal adult material, that child observed in room by technician was accused's daughter, that child was fully clothed and playing with toys in middle of room which had a child gate and appeared to be a playroom, and that there was no evidence that child had been abused - Pornographic pictures involving children (but not accused's daughter) found on accused's computer - Accused charged and convicted of possession of child pornography contrary to Criminal Code, s 163.1(4) - Whether ITO containing false and misleading passages in contravention of informant's duty to make full and frank disclosure of all material information - Whether selective presentation of facts in ITO created less objective impression and made accused appear more villainous than he actually was - Whether ITO contained sufficient evidence as to alleged expertise of B and H, the truth of the generalisation about the "type of offender", and whether accused was within the "type" to which generalisation applied - Whether appropriate for court to establish broad generalisations about the "proclivities" of certain "types" of offenders</article:cw1>
<article:cw2>Criminal Procedure and Sentencing - Search Warrants - When Issued - ITO limited to allegations of possession of child pornography contrary to Criminal Code, s 163.1(4), and not dealing with accessing child pornography contrary to s 163.1(4.1) - Whether ITO providing reasonable grounds to believe alleged offender possessed or had possessed digital files of illegal image, and that evidence of possession would be found in place to be searched at the time warrant sought - Whether using web browser to view illegal image stored in remote location on Internet establishing level of control necessary to amount to possession - Whether automatic caching of file to hard drive without intent of accused to store and retain file constituting possession - Whether former presence of now-deleted "Lolita" links in 'Favourites' menu of web browser enough to establish possession</article:cw2>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67566</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67566.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>R v Cunningham 2010 SCC 10 (Legal profession, Discharge of counsel): catchwords</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67660.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description></description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100603</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Legal Profession - Discharge of Counsel - Withdrawal - C, a criminal defence lawyer employed by Yukon Legal Aid, representing accused person - Legal Aid informing accused that if he failed to provide updated financial information his legal aid funding would be suspended - Accused failing to provide information, resulting in Legal Aid notifying him that C no longer authorised to represent him - C applying to Territorial Court of Yukon to withdraw as counsel of record because of suspended funding - Application refused - Whether court having jurisdiction to grant C's request to withdraw as counsel on sole ground of non-payment of fees - Principles applicable in exercise of court's discretion to allow withdrawal of counsel - Duty of counsel when required by court to continue to represent accused - Whether supervision of withdrawal as counsel should be left entirely to law societies - Role of law societies in regulating withdrawal of counsel</article:cw1>
<article:cw2>Legal Profession - Solicitor-client Relationship - Privilege - Whether disclosure of non-payment of fees where issue unrelated to merits of case attracting protection of solicitor-client privilege - Whether decision to withdraw as counsel should be left solely to counsel's discretion due to remote possibility that judge may inappropriately try to elicit privileged information in hearing application to withdraw</article:cw2>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67660</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67660.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Reference re Broome v Prince Edward Island 2010 SCC 11 (Tort, Negligence): catchwords</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67661.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description></description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, May, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100603</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, May</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Tort - Negligence - Duty of Care - Plaintiffs claiming that as children they had been physically or sexually abused while living in a privately owned and managed children's home ('Home') between 1928 and 1976 - Home closed in 1976 and remaining assets vested in trust - Legislative scheme maintaining separate private and public streams of child welfare - Home falling under private stream as no evidence that its Board of Trustees consented to relevant legislation being applied to Home, or that approval of Lieutenant Governor in Council for this sought or given - Whether Government of Prince Edward Island ('Province') having statutory duties or obligations with respect to operation, management or supervision of Home giving rise to duty of care, non-delegable or otherwise, in negligence towards plaintiffs - Whether legislation incorporating Home in 1921 imposing duties or obligations on Province - Whether indirect funding given by Province to Home creating sufficient proximity between Province and plaintiffs to give rise to duty of care - Whether power of courts to make orders in children's best interests under parens patriae doctrine imposing positive duty on Crown to seek out and address cases of potential child abuse, or giving rise to private law duty of care on part of Province towards children in care of third parties</article:cw1>
<article:cw2>Tort - Negligence - Vicarious liability - Whether legislative authority or placement of children by Province directly in the Home creating sufficiently close connection between Province and Home to justify imposition of vicarious liability on Province for alleged acts of child abuse by Home's employees</article:cw2>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67661</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/67661.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
