The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act ("CPFTA") is a major pillar of Singapore's consumer protection framework. It provides consumers with legal safeguards against unfair practices, enables them to have recourse to civil remedies before the courts, and is administered by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore ("CCCS"). Under the CPTFA, consumers have the statutory right to commence legal action against a supplier who engages in an unfair practice.
On 7 September 2020, CCCS published the Guidelines on Price Transparency ("Guidelines") to set out how CCCS will give effect to the CPFTA in relation to four pricing practices: drip pricing; price comparisons; discounts; and the use of the term "free". The Guidelines are founded on the principles that suppliers should not make false or misleading claims, and should be transparent and clear in their communication with consumers. The Guidelines were finalised by CCCS after considering the responses received from a public consultation on the draft Guidelines last year (see here for our Client Update on the draft Guidelines).
The Guidelines will come into effect on 1 November 2020 and apply to all suppliers, whether operating online or in physical stores. The Guidelines do not "absolve suppliers of obligations" under any other guidance from any sectoral regulators; where such guidance is more stringent that the Guidelines, then suppliers should follow the stricter approach. While the recommended practices in the Guidelines are not binding in themselves, they are illustrative of the approach that CCCS will take in enforcing the CPFTA, and businesses would do well to adhere to them.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
With the increasingly cross-border nature of insolvency proceedings, it is important to understand the framework for the recognition of foreign insolvency and bankruptcy orders, as well as the grounds on which recognition may be refused.
In Paulus Tannos v Heince Tombak Simanjuntak [2020] SGCA 85, the Singapore Court of Appeal (by a two to one majority) set aside the High Court's recognition of Indonesian bankruptcy orders on the ground of breach of natural justice. The Court of Appeal found that the appellants had not received due notice of the relevant bankruptcy proceedings, and that they were accordingly deprived of the opportunity to be heard.
The decision highlights the main principles of natural justice in enforcement and recognition proceedings. On a practical level, it demonstrates the evidence that should be produced in order to demonstrate compliance with the rules of natural justice. The evidential factors in this case included the following:
- The courier service records showed that the service of notice had not been successful;
- The party which had served notice of the bankruptcy proceedings did not submit evidence on whether service was properly effected; and
- There was no evidence produced on whether the service of notice was proper under Indonesian law.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
The Singapore International Commercial Court ("SICC"), in The Star Entertainment QLD Ltd v Wong Yew Choy and another matter [2020] SGHC(I) 15, has reaffirmed that for public policy reasons, Singapore law does not allow for the recovery of gambling debts, other than in respect of gambling that is legally permitted under local statutes such as the Casino Control Act.
The case involved a claim by the Plaintiff ("The Star"), an Australian casino operator, against a Singaporean casino patron, Dr Wong, for gambling debts arising from purported losses in baccarat games played at The Star's casino in Queensland, Australia. SICC allowed Dr Wong's application to strike out the claim on the grounds that the sums were for gambling losses incurred by him, and as such, the claim fell afoul of section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act ("Act"), which provides that "No action shall be brought or maintained in the Court for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager".
SICC rejected The Star's argument that the prohibition on recovery of gaming debts was inapplicable as the gaming took place in Queensland, where the gaming contract was valid and enforceable. SICC took the position that the words "No action shall be brought" in section 5(2) of the Act covered all actions irrespective of where the cause of action arose.
In the present case, SICC endorsed the Court of Appeal's observation in Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc [2010] SLR 1129 that there was no indication that gambling per se was no longer contrary to the public interests of Singapore simply because two licensed casinos have now been allowed to operate in Singapore.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
As digital currencies continue to become more commonly used, central banks across the world have begun to explore the implementation of Central Bank Digital Currencies ("CBDC") to replace fiat cash. Major economies are already embarking on research and testing phases of the digitalisation process, highlighting the changing nature of payments.
Mr Ravi Menon, the Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore ("MAS"), speaking at a financial forum in Shanghai, discussed the intention for cooperation between Singapore and China in relation to CBDCs. China has drawn attention for its advanced progress in the development of its CBDC, and Singapore has also made substantial inroads in the exploration of blockchain-based CBDCs.
Digital payment is already a dominant form of transaction in China, where Alipay and WeChat Pay are used by much of the population, paving the way for further advancements in digital currency. China has reportedly launched a pilot programme of its CBDC, with the digital yuan being rolled out for testing in selected Chinese cities earlier this year. With this development, China is on track to become perhaps the first major economy to launch its CBDC.
It has also been reported that China is considering an East Asia digital currency scheme which would combine a basket of regional currencies such as the Japanese yen, South Korean won and Hong Kong dollar. This would further boost the strength of and support for CBDC development for currencies in the region.
In Singapore, the efforts towards the exploration and establishment of a CBDC have come under the umbrella of what is known as Project Ubin, which is a collaborative project with the industry to explore the use of blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology for clearing and settlement of payments and securities. Project Ubin aims to help MAS gain a better understanding of the technology, benefits and issues through practical experimentation. Project Ubin has since concluded its fifth and final phase.
Economic cooperation between Singapore and China has been a key feature of the close relationship between the two countries. With the strengthening of regional currencies in the context of the world economy, further cooperation in the area of digital currencies would bolster each country's respective development efforts. In the long run, this would also benefit businesses which have commercial ties and activities spanning the two jurisdictions. Some of the main goals of the CBDC project would be to cut cross-border payment and settlement costs, reduce settlement time and ensure transaction security. Businesses could potentially utilise these benefits to enhance their time and cost efficiency.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 ("IRDA"), together with 48 pieces of subsidiary legislation, came into operation on 30 July 2020.
The IRDA is a significant piece of legislation and its implementation is set to effect major changes in the restructuring and insolvency regime in Singapore. Among other changes, the IRDA:
- consolidates all personal and corporate insolvency and debt restructuring laws under one statute;
- introduces new features to update and enhance the operation of the insolvency and restructuring framework, including (i) a restriction on the operation of ipso facto clauses; (ii) third-party funding for officeholder avoidance actions; and (iii) summary dissolution; and
- establishes a licensing and regulatory regime for insolvency practitioners.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
