eOASIS HOME  
LEGAL UPDATES  
NEWSBYTES
REGIONAL ROUND-UP
AUTHORED PUBLICATIONS
COVID-19 RESOURCE CENTRE
ARBITRATION ASIA
 
 
 
    

NewsBytes


Resisting a Stay of Execution Application

In PT Sariwiguna Binasentosa v Sindo Damai [2015] SGHCR 20, the High Court rejected an application by the Defendant judgment debtor for a stay of execution pending appeal, even though the Defendant had offered to pay the judgment sum into Court. Leong Kah Wah and Max Lim from the Shipping & International Trade Practice represented the Plaintiff in this matter, successfully resisting the Defendant’s application.

The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant was for the conversion and/or misdelivery of certain tin cargo shipped under a bill of lading. In a summary judgment application before the Registrar, judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendant appealed against the Registrar's decision.

As the appeal did not operate as a stay of execution, the Defendant also applied for a stay of execution of the summary judgment pending appeal on the main ground that the Plaintiff was an Indonesian company. Importantly, the Defendant offered to pay the judgment sum plus interest into Court as a condition for obtaining a stay.

Nonetheless, the High Court dismissed the Defendant's application. The Court reiterated that the touchstone for the granting of a stay pending appeal is whether the appeal, if successful, would be rendered nugatory in the circumstances. Even though the Defendant's offer to pay the judgment sum into Court provided security for the Plaintiff, it still resulted in the locking up of funds to which the Plaintiff was prima facie entitled. In the absence of evidence that the appeal would be rendered nugatory, the Defendant's offer did not in itself justify a stay pending appeal.

Back to Top Print


No Case to Answer: Alleged Illegal Import of Madagascar Rosewood Cargo

K. Muralidharan Pillai and Paul Tan from the Commercial Litigation Practice were recently instructed as counsel in a matter involving an allegedly illegal import of a cargo of Madagascar rosewood worth some $50million. It was alleged that the import was without the necessary permits by the Singapore authorities. The State Court accepted our submission that there was no case to answer and granted an acquittal of the client. The case involved novel issues of law involving the interpretation of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act and the Customs Act,  as well as international law issues relating to the Convention for the International Trade in Endangered Species. Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP was instructed by Choo Zheng Xi of Peter Low LLC.

Back to Top Print


Court Rejects Amendments to Patents

In Ship's Equipment Centre Bremen GmbH v Fuji Trading (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 159, the Plaintiff applied to the High Court to amend certain patents that it held. However, the Defendants successfully resisted the application, and the Court rejected all the proposed amendments. The Defendants were represented by Lau Kok Keng and Wendy Low from the Intellectual Property Practice.

The Plaintiff was the proprietor of two Singapore patents over certain shipping equipment. The Plaintiff commenced proceedings against two sets of Defendants for alleged infringement of the patents. However, the Defendants denied any infringement and counterclaimed to invalidate the patents for lack of novelty. The Plaintiff then sought for leave to amend the patents. Here, the Plaintiff's application for amendment was rejected by the High Court.

The Court first considered whether the proposed amendments met the requirements of the Patent Act, which includes the requirement that (i) the amendment not result in the specification disclosing any additional matter; (ii) the amendment does not extend the protection conferred by the patent; and (iii) the amendment must be clear and concise, and supported by the description. Using these criteria, and upon an examination of the evidence, the Court rejected five of the nine proposed amendments.

The Court then considered whether it should exercise its discretion to reject the proposed amendments even if the Patent Act requirements were met. Here, the Court found that there was an undue delay on the part of the Plaintiff in applying to amend the patents, and that the Plaintiff had sought to obtain an unfair advantage from the patents. On this basis, the Court held that it would exercise its discretion to refuse the amendments.

Back to Top Print


Examining the Parity Principle in Criminal Sentencing

Under the parity principle, offenders participating in the same offence should generally incur similar criminal sentences. In the case of PP v Ng Sae Kiat [2015] SGHC 191, the High Court had the opportunity to consider the scope and operation of the parity principle. Notably, the effect of the principle in this case was to avoid a custodial sentence being imposed on a group of Respondents, instead maintaining a monetary fine. The Respondents were successfully represented in this matter by Hamidul Haq, Thong Chee Kun, Istyana Ibrahim and Josephine Chee from the Commercial Litigation Practice.

The four Respondent traders had faced charges under s 201(b) read with s 204(1) of the Securities and Futures Act (SFA) for accepting certain trades using nominee accounts through a loophole in their employer's trading system. This loophole had been brought to their attention by one Vincent Tan ("Vincent"), who faced similar charges. Before the District Court, all parties were sentenced to fines of varying amounts.

The Prosecution appealed against the Respondents' sentence, arguing for custodial sentences, but did not appeal against Vincent's sentence. The High Court found that the Respondents' conduct did in fact warrant custodial sentences. However, the Court also held that the parity principle applied in the circumstances as the Respondents and Vincent were participants in a "common criminal enterprise". Therefore, as the Respondents’ moral culpability was not significantly different from Vincent's, there should be parity in their sentences.

We issued a Client Update on this case. To view the Update, click here.

Back to Top Print


Donaco Internationals Limited's Acquisition of Star Vegas Casino

R&T Sok & Heng Law Office in Cambodia together with its Malaysian counterpart, Christopher & Lee Ong, acted for Donaco International Limited in its acquisition of Star Vegas Casino, one of the biggest casinos in Cambodia and widely recognised as the best casino in Poi Pet of Cambodian-Thai border. The aggregate value of the transaction is US$360 million, in which US$100 million was financed by Mega International Commercial Bank.

Christopher & Lee Ong led the coordination, advising and preparation of the transaction agreements and documents, while R&T Sok & Heng Law Office conducted legal due diligence on the target business and assets. It also reviewed the transaction agreements and documents, as well as advised the client on the various local requirements and compliances in connection with the acquisition, and the financing and perfection of security.

The partners and lawyers involved in this deal were Heng Chhay, Tiv Sophonnora and Ra Sophannarith from R&T Sok & Heng Law Office, and Lee Hock Chye, Goh Yau Jun and Jorin Tan from Christopher & Lee Ong.

Back to Top Print


Initial Public Offering of CMC Infocomm Limited

Click here to read the article

Back to Top Print


Issue of Bonds for QT Vascular

Click here to read the article

Back to Top Print



2024: 
December 2023 - January
February

2023: 
December 2022 - January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November

2022: 
December 2021 - January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November

2021: 
December 2020 - January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November