• postimage

    01:04 AM Tan Zhi Xiang (LLB, King's College London)

    Fairness for Divorcing Homemakers? – TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matter [2017] SGCA 15

    It has long been recognised that marriage is a partnership of equals. As the Court of Appeal noted in NK v NL [2007] 3 SLR(R) (“NK”) “[t]he contributions of both spouses are equally recognised whether he or she concentrates on the economics or homemaking role (NK at [20]). However, how does one give effect to this principle when dividing matrimonial assets in a divorce? The different methodologies...

  • postimage

    06:25 PM Leong Hoi Seng Victor (Justices’ Law Clerk, Supreme Court, Singapore) & Zhuang Changzhong (Practice Trainee, Harry Elias Partnership LLP)

    Yap Son On v Ding Pei Zhen clarified Contractual Interpretation but left questions about Extrinsic Evidence and the Starting Points for Interpretation

    In Yap Son On v Ding Pei Zhen [2016] SGCA 68 (“Yap Son On”), the Court of Appeal found that ‘19%’ of a certain number of shares could not be reinterpreted as an absolute amount of 5.5m shares. This note briefly explores the Court’s approach in coming to that conclusion. While Yap Son On successfully consolidated the approaches to contractual interpretation, it left behind the problems of how this ...

  • postimage

    06:09 PM Leong Hoi Seng Victor (Justices’ Law Clerk, Supreme Court, Singapore)

    The Minority’s Approach to Statutory Interpretation in AG v Ting Choon Meng better accords with the Interpretation Act

    In AG v Ting Choon Meng [2017] SGCA 6, a majority of the Court of Appeal found that section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) (“PFHA”) could not be invoked by the Government. The minority found otherwise. The main difficulty was that section 15 was a remedy available to “subject[s]”, while the other remedies in the PFHA were only limited to “victim[s]”. The question ...

  • postimage

    04:04 PM Tan Tian Hui (Practice Trainee, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) and Jason Teo (Legal Trainee, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)

    A distinction without a difference: L Capital Jones Ltd v Maniach Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 3

    Order 57, Rule 9A(5) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev. Ed.) (“the Rule”) provides: “A respondent who, not having appealed from the decision of the Court below, desires to contend on the appeal that the decision of that Court should be varied in the event of an appeal being allowed in whole or in part, or that the decision of that Court should be affirmed on grounds other than those relied ...

  • postimage

    05:09 PM Matthew Koh (Associate, International Arbitration, Construction & Projects, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP), & Alexis Ang (Research Associate, Asian Business & Rule of Law Initiative, Singapore Management University School of Law)

    Event Report: Lecture by Professor Sean Murphy on “International Law Relating to Islands”

    On 13 December 2016, Professor Sean Murphy of the George Washington University Law School and member of the United Nations International Law Commission delivered a lecture titled “International Law Relating to Islands”. The event was co-organised by the Singapore Branch of the International Law Association and Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP....