In the recent decision of BYL v BYN [2020] SGHC(I) 06 (“BYL v BYN”), the Singapore International Commercial Court upheld an ICC Award that was challenged on the basis that (a) the Tribunal had failed to decide the dispute before it, and (b) the Tribunal’s conduct gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of bias.
On 18 February 2020, the Singapore government announced that it would support Singapore firms and workers with some S$4 billion dollars in view of the impact of COVID-19 on the global and domestic economy. This article focusses on some of the problems COVID-19 may cause in the construction industry in Singapore.
In the recent decision of Hai Jiao 1306 Ltd and others v Yaw Chee Siew [2020] SGHC(I) 03 (“HJ1306 v YCS”), the Singapore International Commercial Court drew an adverse inference against the defendant for his repeated breaches of discovery orders.
Is an arbitrator entitled to decline to hear evidence from all of a party’s witness based on his interpretation of the arbitral rules? This issue arose for consideration in the High Court decision of CBP v CBS [2020] SGHC 23 (“CBP v CBS”), and on the facts of the case, the High Court set aside the arbitral award for breach of natural justice.
In Daisho Development Singapore Pte Ltd v Architects 61 Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 16 (“Daisho v Architects”), the High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for losses allegedly resulting from negligent misrepresentations made by the defendant. This article will focus on some of the reasons why the High Court found that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff.
In The Civil Aviation Authority v Jet2.Com Ltd, R(on the Application of) [2019] EWCA 35 (“CAA v Jet2”), the EWCA applied the dominant purpose test on the question of whether legal advice privilege covered email communications between multiple persons which included amongst them a lawyer.
In the recent England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) decision of Raiffeisen Bank International AG v Asia Coal Energy Ventures Ltd & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 11 (“Raiffeisen”), Males LJ (with whom Baker and Lewison LLJ agreed) held that documents pertaining to instructions which the respondent firm of solicitors received from its clients are privileged and do not have to be disclosed. This update summarises the key statements made by Males LJ in the Raiffeisen decision.
In the recent England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) decision of Raiffeisen Bank International AG v Asia Coal Energy Ventures Ltd & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 11 (“Raiffeisen”), Males LJ (with whom Baker and Lewison LLJ agreed) held that documents pertaining to instructions which the respondent firm of solicitors received from its clients are privileged and do not have to be disclosed. This update summarises the key statements made by Males LJ in the Raiffeisen decision.
In thhe recent decision of Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd [2019] SGHC 291 (“Sun Travels v Hilton”), the High Court allowed the examination of judgment debtor in relation to assets in a jurisdiction where the judgment could not be enforced.
In BNA v BNB and another [2019] SGCA 84 (“BNA v BNB”), the Singapore Court of Appeal allowed (to an extent) an appeal against the decision of the Singapore High Court on the issue of the parties’ choice of seat of the arbitration.
![BYL V BYN [2020] SGHC(I) 06](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b6dba3250a54f3034533fb4/1585281258486-RHY4RF89ASTX5QY4AAGA/image-asset.jpeg)
![DAISHO DEVELOPMENT SINGAPORE PTE LTD V ARCHITECTS 61 PTE LTD [2020] SGHC 16](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b6dba3250a54f3034533fb4/1580794859286-PLNTT0HBI4WH6DGHXR8U/image-asset.jpeg)
![SUMIFRU SINGAPORE PTE LTD V FELIX SANTOS ISHIZUKA AND OTHERS [2020] SGHC 7](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b6dba3250a54f3034533fb4/1582621228404-C63YN61DE7K6C7T4AT1G/image-asset.jpeg)
![BNA V BNB AND ANOTHER [2019] SGCA 84](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b6dba3250a54f3034533fb4/1578487600689-LXWM8GH3WU54N4IF415W/image-asset.jpeg)