|
|
Law enforcement agencies routinely seize properties for the purposes of investigations. However, what is the extent of the law enforcement agency's power to withhold possession of such property? What is the role of the Courts in policing the law enforcement agencies’ exercise of power?
These questions were considered by the High Court in a ground-breaking decision, Lee Chen Seong Jeremy and others v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGHC 48. The Singapore High Court in allowing the criminal revision and ordering that the Commercial Affairs Department release the seized properties to the Petitioners, also decided for the first time the appropriate procedure to be applied by the Court in all future applications concerning the law enforcement agency's application for continued extension of seized properties.
The Petitioners were successfully represented by Adrian Wong and Ang Leong Hao from the Commercial Litigation Practice.
Click here to read our client update.
While Singapore judgments on collision liability have been sparse in the past years, the Singapore Courts have seen a recent spate of cases dealing with ship collisions. The most recent of these is The "Mount Apo" and the "Hanjin Ras Laffan" [2019] SGHC 57.
The case involved two large ships which collided in the Singapore Strait. To determine the apportionment of liability, the Court had to consider issues regarding the crossing of traffic lanes in a traffic separation scheme and the proper use of very high frequency radio communications between ships.
The "Hanjin Ras Laffan", where liability was determined in her favour, was represented by Leong Kah Wah and Dedi Affandi from the Shipping & International Trade Practice. To effectively present its case, the team had to manage and present technical evidence distilled from the ships' voyage data recorders in the form of audio, video and animation reconstruction. This was in addition to the already complex tasks of handling conflicting experts’ and mariners' evidence, the establishment of the factual narrative, and the assessment of the legal framework.
Click here to read our client update.
The Singapore International Commercial Court ("SICC") has found cryptocurrency exchange operator, Quoine Pte Ltd, liable for breach of contract and breach of trust in unilaterally reversing a customer's Bitcoin (BTC) / Ethereum (ETH) trades, in the first cryptocurrency-related dispute that has come before the Singapore Courts.
In arriving at his decision in B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC(I) 03, International Judge Simon Thorley, QC delved into novel issues relating to recognition of cryptocurrencies as property, segregation and trusts over cryptocurrencies, nature of relationship between customers and an exchange, doctrine of mistake in contracts made through automated computer programs, and incorporation of contractual terms posted on a website, to name a few.
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP's specialists in financial services disputes, Danny Ong, Sheila Ng and Jason Teo from the Commercial Litigation Practice acted for the successful Plaintiff.
Click here to read our client update.
On 14 January 2019, the Personal Data Protection Commission ("PDPC") issued its decision in the case concerning the largest breach of personal data in Singapore. In Re Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd & Ors [2019] SGPDPC 3, the Commissioner for Personal Data Protection ("Commissioner") ruled that Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd ("SingHealth") and Integrated Health Information Systems Pte Ltd ("IHiS") failed to protect the personal data of individuals, in violation of section 24 of the Personal Data Protection Act ("PDPA"). Section 24 of the PDPA mandates an organisation to protect the personal data in its possession or under its control by making reasonable security arrangements to prevent unauthorised access, collection, use, disclosure, copying, modification, disposal or similar risks.
Given the severity of the lapses, the Commissioner imposed a financial penalty of $250,000 and $750,000 on SingHealth and IHiS, respectively, the two highest fines to date imposed on errant organisations for failure to comply with the PDPA. The maximum financial penalty under the PDPA is $1 million.
Click here to read our client update.
On 20 February 2019, the Info-communications Media Development Authority ("IMDA") published its consultation paper on a converged competition code for the media and telecommunication market (the "Consultation Paper"). The public consultation closes on 17 April 2019.
Competition and market related matters for the telecommunication and media (broadcasting and newspaper) industries are currently governed by two separate pieces of sectoral competition regulation, the Telecom Competition Code ("TCC") and the Media Market Conduct Code ("MMCC"), respectively. The TCC and the MMCC were first issued by the then-Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore ("IDA") and the Media Development Authority of Singapore ("MDA") in 2000 and 2003 respectively.
On 1 October 2016, the IDA and MDA merged to form the Info-communications Media Development Authority ("IMDA"), a converged regulator for the info-communications media market. The present review of the TCC and the MMCC to develop a harmonised competition code that applies to both the Singapore telecommunication and media markets marks a further step towards taking a holistic approach to regulation and competition management of the two sectors.
Click here to read our client update.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore has revised the Singapore Code on Take-overs and Mergers to clarify its application to companies with a dual class share structure with a primary listing on the Singapore Exchange. The revisions took effect from 25 January 2019.
The revisions were made on the advice of the Securities Industry Council, and incorporates feedback from a public consultation in July 2018.
Click here to read our client update.
On 14 January 2019, the Payment Services Bill ("PSB") was passed in Parliament. The PSB will come into force on such date as appointed by notification in the Government Gazette. The PSB aims to streamline regulation of payment services under a single legislation, and to expand the scope of regulated payment services to keep up with new technological developments in payment services and the various risks they pose.
Click here to read our client update.
Please note that whilst the information in this Update is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only
intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as a substitute for specific professional advice.
|
|
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
9 Straits View
Marina One West Tower
#06-07
Singapore 18937
Republic of Singapore
http://sg.rajahtannasia.com
Contacts: Francis Xavier, SC, PBMPartnerD +65 62320551francis.xavier@rajahtann.comChia Kim HuatPartnerD +65 62320464kim.huat.chia@rajahtann.comHoward CheamPartnerD +65 62320685howard.cheam@rajahtann.com| Rajah & Tann Asia is a network of legal practices based in Asia. |
Member firms are independently constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local legal requirements. Services provided by a member firm are governed by the terms of engagement between the member firm and the client. |
This update is solely intended to provide general information and does not provide any advice or create any relationship, whether legally binding or otherwise. Rajah & Tann Asia and its member firms do not accept, and fully disclaim, responsibility for any loss or damage which may result from accessing or relying on this update. |
|
|
