eOASIS is Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP's legal information website for clients, containing business and legal information prepared from a practitioner's viewpoint. It has four different modules, updated regularly, and materials range from commentaries on the latest legal developments to key legal and business information.

What's new on eOASIS

The right to a ship arrest is often a key issue in maritime disputes, as it provides an essential form of security, and incentivises the swift disposal or settlement of claims. In DSA Consultancy (FZC) v The “Eurohope” [2017] SGHC 218, the Singapore High Court considered a basic but fundamental question of law: whether a ship may be arrested in Singapore to obtain security for a foreign Court action. The Defendant in this case was successfully represented by Leong Kah Wah and Lim Ruo Lin of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP. 

Defamation as a tort can cover a variety of forms of publication and size of the group of publishees. However, are there situations where a defamatory publication is deemed to be so trivial that it warrants the striking out of a claim without allowing the defamed party the right to prove his case at trial? This was the question faced by the Singapore High Court in the case of Chan Boon Siang and others v Jasmin Nisban [2017] SGHC 249. The Plaintiff was successfully represented in this case by Lau Kok Keng, Chia T-Chien and Daniel Quek of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP. 

The inward re-domiciliation regime, introduced in the Companies (Amendment) Act 2017, came into effect in Singapore on 11 October 2017. Under this regime, a foreign corporate entity will be allowed to transfer its registration to Singapore. Once re-domiciled, the foreign corporate entity will become a Singapore company registered under the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore, and will have to comply with the provisions of the Companies Act. 

This is a snapshot of key legal developments in jurisdictions where Rajah & Tann Asia has regional presence.  

Under Chinese law, not all costs follow the event. In practice, the Chinese courts have long been notoriously reluctant in upholding a claim for the litigant’s lawyers’ fees. However, in March 2017, the Supreme People’s Court of China in Wu Xiaoguang v Li Qiang & Others [2016] Supreme Court Civil Final No. 613 espoused the view that where parties have contractually agreed that one party shall bear the lawyers’ fees of the other party, the Court ought to award a successful litigant its lawyer fees. This Update provides a summary of the decision and its potential impact.  

Contact Us