This update covers recent Court decisions and featured articles, videos and developments relating to IP/IT dispute resolution in Singapore.

The High Court set aside interim injunctions previously granted to MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd that prevented a former employee from working for a rival company. The High Court agreed with the employee that the non-compete clause contained in the employment contract was unreasonable and unfair. This update discusses the High Court decision.

In an unreported decision in HC/S 236/2022, the General Division of the Singapore High Court held the defendant directors not liable for breach of the duty not to compete with the plaintiff company by providing services to the plaintiff’s former customer. This was based in part on a critical finding of the Court that the directors had been effectively excluded from the plaintiff company by the time they had begun servicing the plaintiff’s former customer.

In Lutfi Salim bin Talib and another v British and Malayan Trustees Ltd [2024] SGHC 85, the High Court held that the court should not go behind filed affidavits for the purposes of deciding an application under O 11 r 3(1) of the Rules of Court 2021, unless there are very strong reasons to do so.

This update gives a brief background and overview of the Singapore High Court decision in Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 39 which is the first case in Singapore invoking the “Simplified Process for Certain Intellectual Property Claims”, an optional “fast track” for intellectual property (“IP”) litigation to provide parties with a more affordable and expedited route to enforce their IP rights in Singapore.

The decision of Kyen Resources Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v Feima International (Hongkong) Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 7 saw the Court of Appeal deciding three major points of law for the first time. The decision imposes important limits on when and how liquidators can assert crossclaims of the company in liquidation in order to defeat claims in a creditor’s proof of debt, and also clarifies the law on transnational issue estoppel in insolvency proceedings.

This update looks at some of the key legal highlights over the past 3 months, across various practice areas including deals, restraint of trade, family law and intellectual property among others.

Construction contracts are unique in having a contractor administrator, whose role has been described as an “officer of the contract”. The conventional wisdom in common law jurisdictions is that where the contract administrator is called upon to decide an issue which affects the interests of both the employer and the contractor, he is required to exercise independent judgment. This case note considers two recent Singapore High Court cases which have held that a contract administrator under the most popular design-and-build standard form of contract in Singapore does not owe such a duty of independence.

The issue of taking security over cryptoassets comes to the force in the financing of cryptoasset investment, as Singapore looks to address the associated money laundering and terrorism financing risks. This update takes a brief look at the position of the Singapore courts in the treatment of cryptoassets as property.

This legal update discusses the different approaches taken by the Courts when dealing with the issue of exclusive use and enjoyment of common property.

This update examines this decision by the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) which marks the first time cross-border restructuring matters were heard in this court. The SICC recognised Garuda Indonesia’s PKPU Proceeding and Composition Plan under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.

The issue on where to legally locate cryptocurrency for the purposes of legal claims is one which continues to generate debates. The General Division of the High Court of Singapore’s recent decision in Cheong Jun Yoong v Three Arrows Capital Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 21 (Cheong v 3AC) offers some guidance on this and this update examines the key takeaways and possible limits of this decision.

When an experienced investor suffers losses after instructing his broker to sell his futures contracts, to what extent can the broker be held liable for his losses? The decision of Rajesh Harichandra Budhrani v INTL FCStone Pte Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 18 raises several interesting issues for investors and brokers alike.

This case update discusses when a decision of the Strata Titles Board is appealable to the General Division of the High Court, how the time for appeal is calculated and the principles applicable to an application for extension of time to file appeal.

The recent decision of Farooq Ahmad Mann (in his capacity as judicial manager) v Golden Mountain Textile and Trading Pte Ltd (in judicial management) [2024] SGHC 48 is the first case in which the Singapore Courts issued written grounds for its decision to grant an extension of a judicial management order under the framework of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed).

In Reliance Infrastructure Limited v Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd [2024] SGHC(I) 3, the Singapore International Commercial Court threw out a challenge to a US$146m SIAC award won by Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd. The challenge was based on allegations that the underlying agreement was forged.

This update discusses the Court of Appeal’s views in this decision where the court, for the first time, set out clear guidelines on when and how judicial interviews should be conducted in order to ascertain a child’s wishes and feelings, and the use of child welfare reports in child proceedings.

This update looks at the key takeaways from a recent High Court decision in which the court dismissed an attempt by Shopee to restrain a former employee from accepting employment with a competitor, on the basis that Shopee had failed to prove that its claim against the former employee was not frivolous. This case illustrates the challenges and pitfalls employers can face when enforcing restraint of trade clauses against employees.

This article examines the decision of ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin [2023] SGHC 199 where a summary judgment was obtained against the defendant for a breach of her employment contract and abuse of her position to unjustly enrich herself. This decision is the first time a common law court has declared that cryptocurrency is property capable of being held on trust, and its nature is that of a chose in action. This article also examines potential implications that may arise from this decision.

This update looks at the High Court decision of Cheong Jun Yoong v Three Arrows Capital Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 21 which sets out how the location of a crypto asset should be determined.