<?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>Claim for contractually agreed sum may not be enforceable where there is lack of reciprocity</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66329.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SHC considered whether to allow a claim for a contractually agreed sum by a party which had not performed its own obligations under the contract. It was determined that the principle of reciprocity prevented such a claim because the separate obligations were all part of one indivisible bargain.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100304</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66329</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66329.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC dismisses claim by seasoned investor against bank</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66330.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SHC dismissed a claim against a private bank for losses allegedly sustained from the wrongful closure of his foreign exchange positions. The Court emphasised the fact that not only was the plaintiff a seasoned investor, he had also adopted a blunderbuss approach, making a wide range of allegations against the defendant bank which he was ultimately unable to prove. The Court concluded that this action was in fact an attempt to transfer the losses which he had suffered as a result of market movements onto the bank.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Update, Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100304</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66330</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66330.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>The importance of drawing up formal contracts</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66316.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>This case illustrates why it is always better to have formal contracts to document business arrangements even when parties have had a good prior working relationship.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Update, Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100303</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66316</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66316.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC resolves conflict between arbitration provision and court jurisdiction clause</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66317.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The issue was whether notwithstanding that the claims ostensibly arose out of the Defendant&#8217;s failure to observe the Escrow Agreement, the disputes between the parties still ought to be resolved in accordance with the arbitration clause under the Drilling Contract such that the present proceedings ought to be stayed in favour of arbitration.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100303</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66317</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66317.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC affirms law governing penalty clauses and post-termination damages</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66208.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Decision confirms &lt;i&gt;Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co.&lt;/i&gt;, the seminal case on penalty clauses in Singapore remains good law in Singapore. Also the High Court affirmed the position that a repudiatory breach of contract will give rise to an entitlement to post-termination damages.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100226</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66208</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66208.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Restraint of trade clauses in the context of a sale of business</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66211.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SCA has affirmed that Singapore courts will take a more liberal approach when considering restrictive covenants in the context of a sale of business, compared to a situation where such covenants are contained in a contract of employment.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Update, Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100226</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66211</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66211.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>EHC rules on conditional payments provision of 1992 ISDA Master Agreement</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66102.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The judge stated that sections 2(a)(i) and (iii) of the IMA are &#8220;one time&#8221; provisions for the assessment and calculation of whether a sum is owed at the end of a contract month. In his opinion &#8220;there is nothing in the wording of the provisions of the contract to suggest that if [a] condition precedent is fulfilled at some later date, some obligation to pay then springs up&#8221;.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Financial Services Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100222</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Financial Services Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66102</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66102.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC rules against service provider of Internet-based facility which allowed public to record free-to-air broadcasts and films</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66081.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>In &lt;i&gt;RecordTV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd &amp; Ors&lt;/i&gt;, the Singapore High Court found that the service provider of an Internet-based facility which allowed members of the public to request for free-to-air broadcasts and films to be recorded for viewing had infringed the Copyright Act.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100217</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66081</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66081.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SCA clarifies responsibilities of employers with employees working at heights and those working on third-party premises</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66076.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The judgment is also instructive for its detailed discussion of the employers&#8217; duty of care in general and the relevance of foreign case law, as well as its observations on the relevance of industry codes.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100212</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66076</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66076.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SCA upholds restraint of trade clause in music publishing contract</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66080.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The court was asked to consider the enforceability of a restraint of trade clause and whether a contractual obligation to account for royalties due had been sufficiently met.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100212</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66080</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66080.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Assessment of damages in a breach of contract</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66011.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Where a party seeks to assess damages suffered as a result of a breach of a contract, the court must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the alleged loss is causally connected or linked to the breach of contract.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Update, Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100204</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66011</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66011.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>The efficacy of 'conclusive evidence' clauses</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66012.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SHC has affirmed that a certificate issued pursuant to a &#8220;conclusive evidence&#8221; clause is, in the absence of fraud or manifest error, determinative of the amount due. However, the existence of such a clause does not preclude the court from reviewing the legal basis of the demand itself.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Update, Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100204</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66012</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66012.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Is bank's "conclusive certificate of indebtedness" really conclusive?</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65983.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The court held that a certificate or statement issued pursuant to a conclusive evidence clause is, in the absence of fraud or manifest error on the face of the statement, determinative of the amount due.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100202</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65983</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65983.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC affirms that an application for injunction to restrain a call on an on-demand bond is a substantive matter</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65992.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The grant of an injunction restraining a beneficiary of an on-demand bond from making a call on the bond is a substantive matter and is governed by the law to which the court is directed by its choice of law rules, and not the procedural law of the forum.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Update, Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100202</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65992</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65992.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>The Singapore position on entitlement to damages arising from post-termination losses</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65984.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>SHC decided that where a party faced with a breach of contract terminates the contract pursuant to an express termination clause, it is only entitled to damages in respect to the losses it has suffered as at the date of termination. In the absence of a concurrent right to terminate the contract under Common Law, such a party is not entitled to damages arising from losses arising after the date of termination.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100201</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65984</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65984.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Website offering online recording services found liable for copyright infringement</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65856.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>RecordTV Pte Ltd, an internet company which owns, operates and designs www.recordtv.com, a website which allows end-users to watch certain Mediacorp broadcasts and films online, has been found liable for copyright infringement by authorising the copying of and communicating Mediacorp&#8217;s broadcasts and films to the public through its website.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Update, Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100120</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65856</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65856.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC interprets restraint of trade clauses in directors' service agreements with company</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65787.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The court noted that in order to be enforceable, restraint of trade clauses must not be unreasonably wide in scope as &lt;i&gt;prima facie&lt;/i&gt; they are contrary to public policy. The burden of proof to show reasonableness is on the party seeking to rely on the restraint of trade clauses - in this case, the company.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100114</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65787</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65787.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Singapore District Court finds listed company director failed to use reasonable diligence</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65788.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>It is prudent for a director to ensure that he applies his mind independently on each issue the board of directors has to consider. Documentation of a director&#8217;s application of his mind and decision would be useful. A director should also avoid situations which may create an impression that he has delegated or fettered his approval or decision making power to another person.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100114</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65788</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65788.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SCA on enforceability of foreign judgment relating to claim for gambling debt</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65789.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The CA ruled that the foreign judgment was not a foreign money judgment for a fixed some of money but was, instead, a judgment for the setting aside of the fraudulent transfer of the appellant&#8217;s interest in a certain piece of property. As such, the judgment was not enforceable because a foreign judgment could be enforced by way of a common law action only if that judgment was for a fixed sum of money.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100114</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65789</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65789.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SCA on the requirement of "use as a trade mark" for the purpose of trade mark infringement</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65790.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>While the CA had left open the issue of whether trade mark use is required for the purpose of establishing infringement, this decision is still valuable in that it has clarified and reinstated several important fundamental concepts of trade mark law. For e.g. it is now trite law that the concept of identical marks under s 27(1) of the Act entails a strict interpretation, and that in a passing off action, goodwill must be proved specifically in relation to the mark in question, at the relevant time.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100114</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65790</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65790.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SCA finds binding contract between parties for grant of option and that doctrine of part performance part of Singapore law</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65791.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The contract to grant an option for the sale for the property was binding between the parties when (at the latest) the 1% cheque was deposited into the first appellant&#8217;s bank account.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100114</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65791</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65791.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC construes conclusive evidence clause in account opening documents</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65768.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Court held that the precise effect of a conclusive evidence clause will depend upon its specific wording and formulation.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Update, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100113</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65768</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65768.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>The importance of document verification for banking transactions</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65524.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Prior to any draw down, banks are furnished with certified extracts of board resolutions approving the banking transactions and authorising the execution of contracts. Such extracts usually include resolutions delegating authority to the signatories to enter into the contracts. This requirement was discussed at length in the court&#8217;s consideration of the issues relating to the law of agency.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Rodyk Reporter, Rodyk &amp; Davidson LLP, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091230</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Rodyk Reporter</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rodyk &amp; Davidson LLP, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65524</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65524.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC allows counterclaim to revoke patent</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65525.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The court agreed that the plaintiff&#8217;s invention was not novel and it did not involve an inventive step, both of which were conditions that had to be satisfied for an invention to be patentable.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Rodyk Reporter, Rodyk &amp; Davidson LLP, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091230</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Rodyk Reporter</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rodyk &amp; Davidson LLP, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65525</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65525.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SCA defines duty of purchaser to sellers in a collective sale</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65527.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SCA examined the relationship between the purchaser of a collective sale site, the consenting majority owners, and the obligations and the role of the Strata Titles Board in this case.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Rodyk Reporter, Rodyk &amp; Davidson LLP, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091230</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Rodyk Reporter</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rodyk &amp; Davidson LLP, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65527</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65527.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SCA clarifies principles for proper service of contractual notice of default</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65361.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The dispute centred on whether the notice of default was properly served on Party A. The SCA discussed the legal principles which one ought to be aware of before he or she serves a notice of default.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091218</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65361</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65361.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>The extent of a liquidator's duty in relation to the verification of a proof of debt</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65344.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>In the winding up of a company, a liquidator has a legal right to go beyond the company&#8217;s accounts and scrutinise the proof of debt when there are reasons to suspect its genuiness or legal validity. The liquidator must, however, not be seen to be using this right as a means to deny the creditor of his monies and/or further the interests of his appointor. This will put him in a position of conflict of interest.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091217</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65344</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65344.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC finds senior employee owing fiduciary duties akin to director</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65280.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The court found that the defendant had breached his fiduciary duties to the second and third plaintiffs, while he was still a director or employee of the second and third plaintiffs.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091216</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65280</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65280.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC interprets meaning of "for the time being in force" in arbitration clause</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65282.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The court held that the words &#8220;for the time being in force&#8221; referred to the SIAC Rules in force at the time of the commencement of the arbitration.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091216</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65282</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65282.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SCA considers whether terms of agreement varied by "without prejudice" communications</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65283.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Generally, communications between parties made on a &#8220;without prejudice&#8221; basis in the course of settlement negotiations are not admissible. Where correspondence is marked &#8220;without prejudice&#8221;, the presence of these words places the burden of persuasion on the party who contends that these words should be ignored.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091216</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65283</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65283.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SHC clarifies scope of force majeure and termination clauses</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65270.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SHC ruled that a rise in prices of sand, caused by a ban on sand exports (the &#8220;sand ban&#8221;) by the Indonesian government in Jan 07, did not constitute a force majeure event which would relieve a concrete supplier of its obligations to supply concrete to a construction company.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Update, Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091214</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65270</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65270.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Adjudication for payment claim upheld by the Court</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65238.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>In the SHC case, the Sub-Contractor applied for adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act, and received a determination in its favour. The Contractor then applied to the courts to have the adjudicator's determination set aside. The Court declined to set aside the determination and found in favour of the Sub-Contractor. Players in the construction industry can take comfort from this decision that the adjudication process under the Act will be upheld by the courts, and that they can rely on it as a means of providing a quick and easy interim solution to construction disputes. This ensures that construction projects will not be held up by disputes over payment claims.</description>
<category domain="Section">Judgment Commentary</category>
<author>Legal News, WongPartnership LLP, Nov, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091210</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>WongPartnership LLP, Nov</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65238</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65238.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Government Securities (Amendment) Bill 2009 passed: Enabling early redemption of Government securities and regulation of primary dealers</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66101.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>When in force, the Bill will amend the Act to regulate primary dealers and allow for the early redemption of Government securities.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Financial Services Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100222</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Financial Services Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66101</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66101.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill 2009 passed: Enhancing enforcement measures against unlicensed moneylenders</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66099.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>On 12 January 2010, the Parliament passed the Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill 2009 which seeks to amend the Moneylenders Act 2008 to introduce, among other things, the following changes &#8230;</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Financial Services Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100219</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Financial Services Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66099</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66099.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Quorums of Statutory Boards (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2009 in force from 15 Jan 10</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66075.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Act revises the quorum for board meetings stipulated in the Acts of 16 statutory boards to &#8220;one-third of the total number of members or three members, whichever is the higher&#8221;. The amendment will align the 16 Acts with the other Acts establishing statutory boards.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100217</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66075</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66075.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Copyright Act amended with effect from 31 Dec 09: Changes to Copyright Tribunal&#8217;s jurisdiction and operational aspects</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66079.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Copyright Act has been amended with effect from 31 December 2009 with the key objective of updating and maintaining its relevance in the face of advancing technologies which have given rise to new ways of accessing and using copyright works. ...</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100217</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66079</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66079.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Medical Registration Act: Streamline disciplinary processes, enhance medical registration and introduce Register of Family Physicians</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66093.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Act will be amended to keep it more relevant in light of recent issues in professional conduct and standards that have arisen due to changing demands and expectations of patients and the public. The amendments streamline disciplinary processes, enhance medical registration and introduce a Register of Family Physicians.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100217</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66093</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66093.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Mental Capacity Act 2008 partially in force from 1 Mar 10: Appointing proxy decision makers</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66094.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>This Act enhances the safeguards for protection of patients compulsorily admitted into psychiatric institutions.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100217</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66094</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66094.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2008 in force from 1 Mar 10</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66095.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>This Act enhances the safeguards for protection of patients compulsorily admitted into psychiatric institutions.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100217</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66095</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66095.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Banking (Credit Card and Charge Card) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2009</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65890.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>This amendment facilitates the implementation and adoption of credit cards with enhanced security features.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100122</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65890</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65890.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Workplace Safety and Health (Safety and Health Management System and Auditing) Regulations 2009 in force 1 Mar 10</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65762.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The regulations provide for safety and health management systems, obligations to appoint workplace safety and health auditors and internal review of safety and health management system. It also deals with the approval of workplace safety and health auditors, their duties and power.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100113</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65762</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65762.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Moneylenders Act 2008: Changes to enhance enforcement measures against unlicensed moneylenders</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65341.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>One of the measures includes empowering the Minister for Law to issue an order to freeze the dealing of any property or any funds in any bank account that has been identified as proceeds of unlicensed moneylending.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Financial Services Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091217</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Financial Services Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65341</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65341.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Government Securities Act: Amendments to enable early redemption of Government securities and regulation of primary dealers</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65343.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Pursuant to a new s 24A, the MAS may, from time to time, by public notice invite the public to apply to redeem any Government securities specified in the public notice before the date of maturity of those Government securities.</description>
<category domain="Section">Legislation Commentary</category>
<author>Financial Services Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091217</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Financial Services Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65343</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65343.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Tax Bites: Singapore Budget 2010</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66376.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>A Singapore Budget 2010 overview</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100308</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66376</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66376.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Tax Bites: Exchange of Information (EOI)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66331.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The main thrust of the amendment is to broaden the scope of exchange by removing the domestic interest condition and putting in place a framework to implement requests by double taxation treaty payments for information concerning the tax position of any person subject to the terms of exchange of information provision.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100304</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66331</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66331.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Foreign investors may form partnerships in China</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66209.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>New measures take effect on 1 Mar 10.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal News, WongPartnership LLP, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100226</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>WongPartnership LLP, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66209</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66209.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Competition Review - February 2010</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66206.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Competition update in Singapore and world wide</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100224</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66206</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66206.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>MAS updates requirements for Exempt Fund Managers and other Exempt Persons</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66207.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Qualities considered for exemption: &#8220;Fit and proper&#8221;, &#8220;Resident in Singapore&#8221;, and employing minimum of &#8220;two persons&#8221;.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Update, Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100224</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66207</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66207.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>MAS proposes to remove accredited investors exemption from securities lending rules for brokers and other changes</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66100.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>At present, the requirements for insurers and brokers are different in some aspects.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Financial Services Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100222</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Financial Services Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66100</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66100.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SGX guidelines for trading members and trading representatives on proper trading conduct for the handling of orders causing adverse market impact</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66103.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The SGX emphasised that Trading Members and Trading Representatives are free to employ different trading strategies. However, as large orders entered within a short period of time have greater potential to create price dislocation they should ask their clients to provide them with the rationale behind any orders likely to adversely impact the market.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Financial Services Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100222</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Financial Services Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66103</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66103.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SGX proposes new Mainboard listing criteria and introduction of SPACs</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66096.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The consultation closes 3 Feb 10.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100219</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66096</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66096.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>IRAS circular provides guidance and clarification on new tax framework for corporate amalgamations</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66097.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>In the new framework, the amalgamated company would continue to carry on the businesses of the amalgamating companies as if there is no cessation of the existing businesses of the amalgamating companies and the amalgamated company takes over the assets, rights and liabilities of the amalgamating companies.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100219</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66097</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66097.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>MAS proposes amendments to MAS Notice 637 on Risk Based Capital Adequacy Requirements for Banks Incorporated in Singapore</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66098.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The changes proposed incorporate a package of measures approved by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in Jul 09 to strengthen the rules governing trading book capital and enhance the three pillars of the Basel II framework. The changes also fine-tune the Notice following from the ongoing review of the capital rules and guidance by the MAS.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Financial Services Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100219</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Financial Services Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66098</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66098.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SIC issues Practice Statement on announcements relating to possible offers</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66092.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Where a target company is the subject of rumour or speculation of a possible offer, there is undue movement in the target company&#8217;s share price, or there is a significant increase in the volume of share turnover of the target company, the party concerned has to make an announcement depending on the circumstances of the case. This practice statement provides guidelines about these announcements.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100217</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66092</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66092.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>MAS reviews age of capacity to enter into insurance contracts</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66077.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>Currently, s 58 of the Insurance Act provides that persons who are 10 years or older may enter into an insurance contract. For those who are below the age of 16, the written consent of a parent or guardian is required before they may do so. MAS suggests removing the minimum age of capacity as the requirement for written consent from a parent or guardian should provide sufficient safeguard against a minor inadvertently entering into a contract of insurance or surrendering his policy.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100212</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66077</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66077.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>MAS consults on Policy Owners&#8217; Protection Fund schemes and insurance resolution</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66078.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The first set of measures relates to the Policy Owners&#8217; Protection Fund, which is funded by the industry to compensate policy owners in the event of the default of an insurer. The second set of measures seeks to enhance the MAS&#8217; powers relating to the resolution of insurers in Singapore. The consultation period ended 29 Jan 10.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100212</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66078</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66078.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>MAS consults on revised proposals covering listed and unlisted investment products Pt 2</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66073.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Part II Response addresses the following: the definition of &#8220;complex investment products&#8221; and requirements for mandatory advice; remuneration structures for sale of investment products; requirement to appoint an approved trustee for unlisted debentures; and the strengthening of the MAS&#8217; investigative and regulatory powers.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Legal Update, Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100210</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Update</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Drew &amp; Napier LLC, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66073</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66073.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>SGX Consultation Paper proposing to revise Main Board admission criteria</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66062.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The paper also introduces new listing rules for SPAC and codifies measures for Secondary Fund Raising.</description>
<category domain="Section">Notice and Directions Commentary</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100209</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66062</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66062.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: George Raymond Zage III v Ho Chi Kwong [2010] SGCA 4 (equity &amp; trusts, knowing receipt, dishonest assistance)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66194.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Court of Appeal considered if a business was liable as constructive trustee for knowingly receiving proceeds from a breach of trust or dishonestly assisting in the misappropriation of the sum.</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100223</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66194</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66194.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: Indulge Food Pte Ltd v Torabi Marashi Bahram [2010] SGHC 22 (when action for agreed sum defeated by failure to perform)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65944.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>This case decided that an action for a contractually agreed sum may be defeated by the claimant&#8217;s failure to perform its obligations under the contract.</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100128</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65944</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65944.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: Bachoo Mohan Singh v PP [2009] SGCA 59 (extension of time to raise question of law of public interest)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65434.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Court of Appeal clarified its jurisdiction to grant an extension of time under s 60(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) (SCJA) where the applicant had previously made an application to the High Court judge to reserve a question of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal under s 60(1) of the SCJA.</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091224</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65434</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65434.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: Chua Chian Ya v Music &amp; Movements (S) Pte Ltd [2009] SGCA 54 (contract, restraint of trade, breach)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65394.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>In this decision, the Court of Appeal applied the doctrine of restraint of trade to a music publishing contract and discussed the obligation to account for royalties collected.</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091221</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65394</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65394.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: AAG v Estate of AAH, Deceased [2009] SGCA 56 (s 3 Inheritance (Family Provision) Act)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65395.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>It was held that an illegitimate child is not entitled to maintenance under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act.</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091221</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65395</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65395.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc [2009] SGCA 60 (enforcement of foreign judgments based on gambling debts)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65269.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>It was held that a foreign judgment could be enforced by way of a common law action only if that judgment was for a fixed sum of money.</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091214</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65269</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65269.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Supreme Court Note: ADF v PP [2009] SGCA 57 (criminal procedure and sentencing)</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65193.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Court of Appeal considered the sentencing principles relevant to an accused charged with voluntarily causing hurt to a domestic maid.</description>
<category domain="Section">Supreme Court Note</category>
<author>Supreme Court Note, Supreme Court, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091211</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Supreme Court Note</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Supreme Court, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65193</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65193.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="text/html" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Grant v Torstar Corporation 2009 SCC 61; Quan v Cusson 2009 SCC 62 (Tort, Defamation): commentary</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66315.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The Supreme Court of Canada in &lt;i&gt;Grant v Torstar&lt;/i&gt; has recognised a new defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.&#160; The defence is available to any person who publishes material of public interest in any medium, whether journalists or those persons who posts blogs and communicate through other online media. In order to raise the defence successfully, the defendant must show that he or she acted responsibly in attempting to verify the information on a matter of public interest. The defence, which is separate and distinct from the existing defence of qualified privilege, was applied in the subsequent decision of &lt;i&gt;Quan v Cusson&lt;/i&gt;.</description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100303</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66315</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66315.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Fullowka v Pinkerton's of Canada Ltd 2010 SCC 5 (Tort, Negligence): catchwords</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66280.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description></description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100302</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Tort - Negligence - Duty of Care - Strike occurring at mine in May 1992 - Employees rejecting tentative agreement reached by employees' bargaining agent, CASAW Local 4, and mine owner, Royal - Royal deciding to continue operating mine during strike using replacement workers - Strike turning violent - Royal hiring Pinkerton's to provide security services - Pinkerton's deploying 52 guards on site by end-May - Following riot by strikers in mid-June, Royal firing about 40 strikers, including W, and reporting matter to police - Later that month, three strikers, including B, entering mine through remote entrance, stealing explosives and painting graffiti threatening replacement workers - Atmosphere later calming down, though some trespassing, property damage and violence continuing - At Royal's request, Pinkerton's reducing its force to 20 guards - Police presence also reduced - In late July and early September, some strikers, including B, causing two separate explosions damaging mine property - Territorial government's officers inspecting mine regularly and aware of risks to miners posed by explosion within mine - In early hours of morning on 18 September, W evading security and planting explosive device inside mine - Nine miners killed in explosion - Territorial government ordering closure of mine - Survivors of deceased miners suing Royal, Pinkerton's and territorial government for negligently failing to prevent murders - Whether prima facie duty of care existing due to relationship between deceased miners and Pinkerton's and territorial government giving rise to sufficient foreseeability and proximity - Whether prima facie duty of care negated by lack of direct control by Pinkerton's and territorial government over W, and by deceased miners' autonomy in accepting risk of working in mine during strike - Whether Pinkerton's and territorial government meeting required standard of care - Whether 'but for' or 'material contribution' test applicable to establish causation</article:cw1>
<article:cw2>Tort - Negligence - Duty of Care - Post traumatic stress disorder - Following fatal explosion, N among first on scene and finding dismembered bodies of colleagues, including that of close friend - N bringing action against Royal, Pinkerton's, territorial government and CASAW Local 4 for post traumatic stress disorder - Whether basis for defendants' liability same in claim by miners' survivors and in N's claim - Whether defendants breached duties in tort to N if they did not breach duties to miners</article:cw2>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66280</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66280.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Tercon Contractors Ltd v British Columbia (Transportation and Highways) 2010 SCC 4 (Contract, Contractual terms): catchwords</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66279.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description></description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, Feb, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100301</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, Feb</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Contract - Contractual Terms - Exclusion Clauses - Province of British Columbia issuing request for expression of interest for design and construction of highway - Six teams responding, including Tercon and Brentwood - Province informing proponents of its intention to design highway itself and issuing request for proposals ('RFP') for its construction - RFP specifying that only six original proponents eligible to submit proposals, and containing exclusion of liability clause stating: "Except as expressly and specifically permitted in these Instructions to Proponents, no Proponent shall have any claim for any compensation of any kind whatsoever, as a result of participating in this RFP, and by submitting a proposal each proponent shall be deemed to have agreed that it has no claim." - Brentwood lacking expertise in drilling and blasting, and thus submitting bid in own name with another construction company that was not a qualified bidder listed as "major member" of team - Province shortlisting Tercon and Brentwood, and eventually selecting Brentwood for project - Tercon suing Province for breach of tendering contract - Whether Province breached tendering contract with Tercon by considering bid from ineligible bidder and awarding work to it - Whether Tercon barred from claiming against Province by exclusion clause - Whether contract law should continue to recognise doctrine of fundamental breach - Analysis applicable when plaintiff seeks to escape effect of exclusion clause or other contractual terms</article:cw1>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66279</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/66279.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Co-operators Life Insurance Co v Gibbens 2009 SCC 59 (Insurance, Sickness insurance): catchwords</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65800.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description></description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100115</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Insurance - Sickness Insurance - Terms - "Bodily [injury] occasioned solely through external, violent and accidental means" - Insured having unprotected sex with three women and contracting genital herpes which led to transverse myelitis, a rare complication that caused total paralysis from his mid-abdomen down - Insured unaware that any of the women had genital herpes, but knew of risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease - Insured claiming compensation under group insurance policy for losses "resulting directly and independently of all other causes from bodily Injuries occasioned solely through external, violent and accidental means, without negligence" on insured's part - Whether insured's loss covered by policy - Whether bodily infirmity that is normal consequence of disease can be characterized as accidental</article:cw1>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65800</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65800.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Grant v Torstar Corp 2009 SCC 61 (Constitutional law, Tort): catchwords</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65801.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description></description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100115</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Constitutional Law - Fundamental Liberties - Freedom of Speech - Newspaper publishing article on proposed private golf course development on G's lakefront property, the article reporting views of local residents on development's environmental impact and possibility that G exercising political influence behind the scenes to secure government approval for project - Journalist attempting to verify allegations in article and asking G for comment, but G declining to do so - G and his company bringing libel action against newspaper and journalist - Whether law of defamation should be modified to provide greater protection for communications on matters of public interest to give adequate weight to constitutional value of free expression</article:cw1>
<article:cw2>Tort - Defamation - Fair Comment - Whether fact that journalist did not honestly believe statement in article amounting to foundation for finding malice when journalist mere conduit for statement and not its maker</article:cw2>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65801</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65801.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Quan v Cusson 2009 SCC 62 (Civil procedure, Tort): catchwords</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65802.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description></description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100115</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Civil Procedure - Appeals - New issue - C, a police constable, travelling from Ontario to New York City shortly after events of 11 September 2001 without employer's permission to assist with search and rescue effort at Ground Zero - Newspaper publishing articles claiming that C had misrepresented himself to New York authorities and possibly interfered with rescue operation - C suing newspaper and journalists for libel - Defendants pleading traditional defence of qualified privilege and not relying on defence known in the United Kingdom as "responsible journalism" as it had not been recognized as a distinct defence by any Canadian court at that time - Trial judge rejecting claim of qualified privilege and putting only defence of justification to jury - Jury finding that not all factual imputations in articles true and awarding damages to C - Court of Appeal developing new defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest, but upholding trial court's decision and deciding that defendants not entitled to new trial and to protection of new defence subsequently recognized by Supreme Court in Grant v Torstar Corp 2009 SCC 61 as they had not raised the defence at trial - Whether appellate court should entertain new issue where required by interests of justice - Whether issue argued on appeal legally and factually distinct from issues raised at trial, and thus genuinely 'new' - Whether unreasonable for defendants to have proceeded on basis of qualified privilege at trial, and only raised responsible communication defence before Court of Appeal - Whether defendants suffering serious prejudice if disallowed from raising new defence - Whether new trial should be ordered - Whether deficiencies in evidentiary record required to establish new defence can be remedied by new trial</article:cw1>
<article:cw2>Tort - Defamation - Responsible communication - Whether defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest applicable on facts</article:cw2>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65802</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65802.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Zheng v Cai [2009] HCA 52 (Tort, Negligence): catchwords</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65631.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description></description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, Jan, 2010</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20100106</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, Jan</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Tort - Negligence - Damages - Personal injuries - Whether payments made to victim of accident by third party should reduce quantum of damages payable by tortfeasor - Whether the intention of third party was to benefit the victim or tortfeasor</article:cw1>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65631</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65631.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Threshhold test for anti-suit injunctions</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65501.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The EHC had to decide whether to grant an interim anti-suit injunction preventing the Defendant from taking proceedings abroad on the grounds that it had agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration. The decision rested on whether the contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause.</description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>Law News, Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091229</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Law News</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Rajah &amp; Tann LLP, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65501</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65501.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>Miazga v Estate of Kvello 2009 SCC 51 (Tort, Malicious Prosecution): commentary</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65406.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in &lt;i&gt;Miazga v Estate of Kvello&lt;/i&gt; focuses on malicious prosecution, a tort that seeks to balance the objective of protecting the liberty of a person against unsubstantiated and malicious prosecutions, and the public interest in the effective and uninhibited prosecution of criminal wrongdoing. In order to establish malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is required to prove that the prosecution was (a) initiated by the defendant; (b) terminated in the plaintiff&#8217;s favour; (c) undertaken without reasonable and probable cause; and (d) motivated by malice. Damage must also be proved.</description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>SMU Highlights, Singapore Management University, Dec, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091222</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>SMU Highlights</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Singapore Management University, Dec</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<article:cw1>Tort - Malicious Prosecution</article:cw1>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65406</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65406.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>English HC discusses meaning of "true and fair view" in warranty</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65281.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The EHC considered whether accounts which are prepared in circumstances where a company has no or insufficient evidence about an existing asset or liability can nevertheless be &#8220;true and fair&#8221;. They considered it against the background of accounting principles/reporting standards and broader companies legislation.</description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091216</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65281</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65281.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>New UK Supreme Court replaces the UK House of Lords from 1 Oct 09</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65278.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>The UK Supreme Court is now the final court of appeal for civil cases in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and for criminal cases in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.</description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091215</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65278</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65278.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

<item>
<title>UKSC focuses on meaning of clause in context of entire document</title>
<link>http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65279.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss</link>
<description>In &lt;i&gt;Re Sigma Finance Corporation&lt;/i&gt;, the UK Supreme Court was faced with the interpretation of a contentious clause within a Security Trust Deed. The court held that the document had to be interpreted in the light of its commercial intention and the nature of the contracting parties&#8217; business. Detailed analysis of the clause&#8217;s wording therefore had to give way to business common sense.</description>
<category domain="Section">Commonwealth Update</category>
<author>Legal Bulletin, Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov, 2009</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<comments></comments>
<article:pubdate>20091215</article:pubdate>
<article:citsource>Legal Bulletin</article:citsource>
<article:citvolume>Allen &amp; Gledhill LLP, Nov</article:citvolume>
<article:cityear>0</article:cityear>
<article:commentsid></article:commentsid>
<article:type>Commentaries</article:type>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65279</guid>
<enclosure url="http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/commentaries/65279.pdf?utm_source=rss%20subscription&#38;utm_medium=rss" length="" type="application/pdf" />
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
