• postimage

    07:16 PM Singapore Law Blog

    SAL Annual Review Conference 2016

    Covering 12 areas of the law over 3 days, this Conference organised by the Singapore Academy of Law will provide rapid updates on the law with incisive panel discussions on gaps and issues in each area. Speakers will discuss the decisions of the Singapore Courts in 2015, touch on relevant cases from other jurisdictions that impact on local law and highlight the developments in the principal areas ...

  • postimage

    11:56 PM Shaun Pereira (Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of Singapore)

    Green Men and Treacherous Crossings: Asnah bte Ab Rahman v Li Jianlin [2016] 2 SLR 944

    Should a pedestrian keep a lookout for oncoming traffic while crossing with the green man in his favour? This innocuous question sharply divided the Court of Appeal in Asnah bte Ab Rahman v Li Jianlin [2016] 2 SLR 944....

  • postimage

    11:28 PM Loh Yu Wei Junie (Associate, Tan Rajah & Cheah)

    No reliance without expectation of returns? - Alvin Nicholas Nathan v Raffles Assets (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2016] SGCA 18

    Expectation and reliance losses are two categories of loss in the assessment of damages for breach of contract. In practice, a head of claim may comfortably fit within both categories. In fact, it may be argued that “reliance loss” is simply a subset of expectation loss, as this commentary will elaborate on below. This commentary will primarily focus on the Court of Appeal’s rejection of the claim...

  • postimage

    11:25 PM Singapore Law Blog

    IPOS Media Release - Cash for IP through loan financing now a reality in Singapore

    IPOS issued a press release today, 2 June 2016, to announce the first success case in Singapore of a loan application using IP as collateral under the IP Financing Scheme....

  • postimage

    01:11 AM Mitchell Yeo Jianhao (Associate, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)

    Bankruptcy Proceedings: third party securities don’t have to be stated in the statutory demand

    The Court of Appeal has stated in no unclear terms that, in the context of bankruptcy practice, a security held by a petitioning creditor in respect of the debt but which was provided by a third party (and not the debtor in the bankruptcy proceedings) (a “third party security”), does not have to be specified in a statutory demand. Further, any application to set aside a statutory demand must be ta...