DOCSLIB.ORG

International Section

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION NYSBA International Section Seasonal Meeting 2009 “New York and New Asia: A Partnership for the 21st Century” October 26-29, 2009 Swissôtel The Stamford Singapore MEDIA PARTNER About ALB: Asian Legal Business Magazine, together with its sister publications, ALB China and Australasian Legal Business magazines are the Asia-Pacific and Gulf region’s leading independent publications for in-house legal counsel, private practice lawyers and business leaders. With coverage on all the important and emerging areas of practice and business, ALB provides the most updated legal and business news from in and around the region. Each issue contains in-depth features examining changes in legislation, important areas of practice, overseas jurisdictions, deals and lateral hire updates along with revealing profiles of major industry leaders. www.legalbusinessonline.com NON-FINANCIAL SPONSORS Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) International Practice Section Michael W. Galligan, Section Chair Phillips Nizer LLP Eduardo Ramos-Gomez, Program Co-Chair Duane Morris LLP Wong Meng Meng, Program Co-Chair WongPartnership LLP Glenn G. Fox, Program Co-Chair Alston & Bird LLP NEW YORK STEERING COMMITTEE Philip M. Berkowitz, Nixon Peabody LLP Carl-Olof Bouveng, Advokatfirman Lindahl KB, Stockholm James P. Duffy, III, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse Hirschtritt LLP Brigitte R. Gambini, Sullivan & Worcester LLP William H. Schrag, Duane Morris LLP SINGAPORE STEERING COMMITTEE Steven Chong, Judge Singapore Supreme Court Lee Suet-Fern, Stamford Law Corporation Philip Jeyaretnam, Rodyk & Davidson LLP Kim Li KWA, Lee & Lee Lee Kim Shin, Allen & Gledhill LLP Chua Lee Meng, GIC Arfat Selvam, Arfat Selvam Alliance LLC Alvin Yeo, WongPartnership LLP Jimmy Yim, Drew & Napier LLC 3 4 INTRODUCTION Section Chair Michael W. Galligan, Phillips Nizer LLP, New York City Program Co-Chairs: Glenn G. Fox, Alston & Bird LLP, New York City Eduardo Ramos-Gomez, Duane Morris LLP, Singapore Wong Meng Meng, WongPartnership LLP, Singapore Important CLE Information The New York State MCLE Board requirement for Attorneys in practice beyond the first two years after admission to the Bar is 24 credit hours per biennial registration cycle, with four hours of these credit hours earned in the area of ethics and professionalism. This program will satisfy up to 18 MCLE credit hours including up to 3.5 hours in ethics and/or up to 14.5 hours in the general category. The ethics portion of this program will qualify for MCLE credit for newly admitted attorneys; however, the balance of the program will not qualify since it is not a basic practical skills program. Don’t miss your chance to earn these CLE credits. Sign up now! Social Programs Tours for spouses and guests to be advised. Discounts and Scholarships New York State Bar Association members and non-members may receive financial aid to attend this program. Under this policy, anyone who requires financial aid may apply in writing, not later than 20 working days prior to the start of the program, explaining the basis of his/her hardship, and if approved, can receive a discount or scholarship, depending on the circumstances. To apply, please send your request in writing to Linda L. Castilla at: New York State Bar Association, One Elk Street, Albany, New York 12207. 5 SCHEDULETITLE OF EVENTS Luncheon tables – As a unique bonus at this year’s conference, during the luncheons each day there will be ten tables dedicated to the countries of Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam. Each table will be clearly marked and an attorney from the designated country will be seated at the table and prepared to have an open discussion over lunch regarding legal issues in the representative country. Any attendee with an interest in the country should feel free to dine at a given table. Monday, October 26 10:00 am – 12:00 noon Chapter Chairs Meeting 12:00 noon – 2:00 pm Chapter Chairs Lunch 12:00 noon – 4:00 pm Registration 2:30 pm – 5:00 pm Executive Committee Meeting 5:30 pm Escorted Walk to Singapore Management University (“SMU”) 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm Welcome Address at SMU by K. Shanmugam, Singapore Minister of Law 7:00 pm – 9:30 pm Cocktail Dinner at SMU Tuesday, October 27 7:30 am – 5:00 pm Registration 8:45 am – 9:00 am Bus Transfer to Singapore Supreme Court 9:10 am – 9:20 am Opening Address – Michael E. Getnick, President, New York State Bar Association 9:20 am – 10:00 am Keynote Address by The Honorable Chief Justice of the Singapore Supreme Court, Chan Sek Keong 10:00 am – 11:00 am Dim Sum Breakfast at Supreme Court and Tour of Court 11:15 am – 12:30 pm Plenary A: (Supreme Court): Global Economic Crisis – Impact on Asia and Beyond Wong Meng Meng, WongPartnership LLP, Singapore Kevin Scully, Executive Chairman and Founder of NRA Capital, Singapore Ong Keng Yong, Ambassador-At-Large, Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Director of the Institute of Public Policy Studies, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore Charles Adams, Professor, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore Vikram Khanna, Associate Editor, The Business Times, Singapore 12:30 pm – 1:00 pm Bus Transfer to Swissotel 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm Lunch Address – Bilahari Kausikan, Second Permanent Secretary of the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs 6 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Tuesday, October 27 (cont’d) 3:00 – 4:15 p.m. Track One – Corporate Track Two – Litigation Track Three – General Panel 1 Panel 2 Panel 3 Foreign Corruption, Money Cartel/Anti Trust Comparative Estate Law Laundering, and Ethics: New Co-Chairs: Co-Chairs: Compliance Controls Under Frank Fine Michael A. Heimos International Law EC Competition Law Advocates, S.P.R.L. Mullin Dean & Heimos LLP, Denver Co-Chairs: Brussels Professor Jennifer Stuckey-Clarke Rick F. Morris Ameera Ashraf, Singapore Management Univesity Goldman Sachs WongPartnership LLP Speakers: New York Singapore Nishith M. Desai Andy Yeo Speakers: Nishith Desai Associates, Mumbai Allen & Gledhill LLP Michael W. Galligan Singapore David Chen DeHeng Law Offices Phillips Nizer, LLP, New York Speakers: Bejing Masatami Otsuka Kenny Mok Robert Ian McEwin Jones Day, Tokyo Siemens Pte Ltd National University of Singapore David Graham Russell Singapore Han Li Toh Sir Harry Gibbs Chambers, Sydney Assistant Chief Executive, Competition Grace Tan This panel qualifies for Commission of Singapore Philippines 1.5 ethics credits. Hao Wang RayYin & Partners, Beijing 4:20-5:10 p.m. Panel 4 Panel 5 Panel 6 Securities Law - Fair Dealing/ Choosing the Place of Arbitration Immigration Investment Guidelines on Selling in Asia – Navigating the Plethora of Chair: Investment Products to Individual Jurisdictions and Institutions Kenneth A. Schultz Investors Co-Chairs: Satterlee Stephen Burke & Burke Co-Chairs: Nils Eliasson New York Hui Choon Yuen Mannheimer Swartling, Hong Kong Speakers: WongPartnership LLP, Singapore Christopher Lau Ranjit Malhotra Eberhard H. Röhm Independent Arbitrator Malhotra & Malhotra Associates, Duane Morris LLP, New York Singapore Chandigarh, India Speakers: John N. Fellas Wan Kai Chee Jonathan Gordon Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York Zaid Ibrahim & Co. Blake Dawson, Sydney Speaker: Kuala Lumpur Han Ming Ho Suresh Divyanathan Clifford Chance, Singapore Drew & Napier, Singapore Kong Yam Tan Kadir, Andri & Partners, Kuala Lumpur 5:15-6:05 p.m. Panel 7 Panel 8 Panel 9 Sovereign Wealth Funds Family Law and Matrimonial Law After the Credit Crisis: The Chair: Co-Chairs: Implication for Insurance and Reinsurance. What Happens Next? Eduardo Ramos-Gomez John F. Zulack Duane Morris LLP Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer Co-Chairs: Singapore New York Howard A. Fischer Engelin Teh Schindler Cohen & Hochman LLP Speakers: New York Locknie Hsu Engelin Teh Practice Associate Professor of Law Singapore John Hanson Singapore Management University Speaker: Barlow Lyde & Gilbert LLP, Singapore Doris Lai Ranjit Malhotra Speakers: Sidley Austin LLP, Singapore Malhotra & Malhotra Associates Stuart S. Carruthers Chandigarh, India Stikeman Elliot, Toronto Yvonne Lee Assistant Professor of Law, Aruno Rajaratnam National University of Singapore Managing Director FINEX Asia, Singapore Lee Cheng Tan Rajah & Tann LLP, Singapore Lok Vi Ming Rodyk & Davidson LLP, Singapore 7 TITLESCHEDULE OF EVENTS 7:30 p.m. Escorted Walk to Downtown Singapore 8:00 – 10:00 pm Dinner Al Fresco in Downtown Singapore, SMU Campus Green Wednesday, October 28 7:30 – 8:30 a.m. Breakfast at Swissotel 8:30 – 9:45 a.m. Track One – Corporate Track Two – Litigation Track Three – General Panel 10 Panel 11 Panel 12 Best Practices in International In House Counsel – Legal Privilege Tax Strategies for Businesses Distribution Contract Drafting: A Chair: Investing in Asia Guide to Key Contract Provisions Chua Lee Ming Co-Chairs: Viewed from New York, Asia and Government of Singapore Investment James R. Shorter, Jr. Europe Corporation Pte Ltd (GIC) Shorter Law Offices Co-Chairs: Speakers: New York Andre R. Jaglom Bryan Ghows Pieter de Ridder Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Ghows Loyens & Loeff Hirschtritt LLP Singapore and Bellevue, Washington Singapore New York George A. Pierce Speakers: Yew Woon Chooi Senior Vice President and General Marco A. Blanco Rodyk & Davidson LLP Counsel, Toyota Tsusho America, Inc. Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Singapore New York Mosle LLP Speakers: Jeffrey M. Tanenbaum Paris Franz Hepp de Sevelinges Nixon Peabody LLP Parul Jain Gide Loyrette Nouel A.A.R.P.I. San Francisco Hanoi Nishith Desai Associates Bangalore Andre H. Friedman Nagy & Trocsanyi LLP Julie H. Cheng New York/Budapest Jun He Law Offices Shanghai 9:45 – 10:00 am Coffee Break 10:00 – 11:15 am Panel 13 Panel 14 Panel 15 Employment Law Insolvency Health Tourism: A Traditionally Local Industry Goes Global Co-Chairs: Co-Chairs: Aaron J. Schindel William H. Schrag Chair: Proskauer Rose LLP Duane Morris LLP Kenneth G. Standard New York New York Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
Recommended publications
  • Why Are Gender Reforms Adopted in Singapore? Party Pragmatism and Electoral Incentives* Netina Tan

    Why Are Gender Reforms Adopted in Singapore? Party Pragmatism and Electoral Incentives* Netina Tan

    Why Are Gender Reforms Adopted in Singapore? Party Pragmatism and Electoral Incentives* Netina Tan Abstract In Singapore, the percentage of elected female politicians rose from 3.8 percent in 1984 to 22.5 percent after the 2015 general election. After years of exclusion, why were gender reforms adopted and how did they lead to more women in political office? Unlike South Korea and Taiwan, this paper shows that in Singapore party pragmatism rather than international diffusion of gender equality norms, feminist lobbying, or rival party pressures drove gender reforms. It is argued that the ruling People’s Action Party’s (PAP) strategic and electoral calculations to maintain hegemonic rule drove its policy u-turn to nominate an average of about 17.6 percent female candidates in the last three elections. Similar to the PAP’s bid to capture women voters in the 1959 elections, it had to alter its patriarchal, conservative image to appeal to the younger, progressive electorate in the 2000s. Additionally, Singapore’s electoral system that includes multi-member constituencies based on plurality party bloc vote rule also makes it easier to include women and diversify the party slate. But despite the strategic and electoral incentives, a gender gap remains. Drawing from a range of public opinion data, this paper explains why traditional gender stereotypes, biased social norms, and unequal family responsibilities may hold women back from full political participation. Keywords: gender reforms, party pragmatism, plurality party bloc vote, multi-member constituencies, ethnic quotas, PAP, Singapore DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5509/2016892369 ____________________ Netina Tan is an assistant professor of political science at McMaster University.
  • [2020] SGCA 16 Civil Appeal No 99 of 2019 Between Wham Kwok Han

    [2020] SGCA 16 Civil Appeal No 99 of 2019 Between Wham Kwok Han

    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGCA 16 Civil Appeal No 99 of 2019 Between Wham Kwok Han Jolovan … Appellant And The Attorney-General … Respondent Civil Appeal No 108 of 2019 Between Tan Liang Joo John … Appellant And The Attorney-General … Respondent Civil Appeal No 109 of 2019 Between The Attorney-General … Appellant And Wham Kwok Han Jolovan … Respondent Civil Appeal No 110 of 2019 Between The Attorney-General … Appellant And Tan Liang Joo John … Respondent In the matter of Originating Summons No 510 of 2018 Between The Attorney-General And Wham Kwok Han Jolovan In the matter of Originating Summons No 537 of 2018 Between The Attorney-General And Tan Liang Joo John ii JUDGMENT [Contempt of Court] — [Scandalising the court] [Contempt of Court] — [Sentencing] iii This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General and other appeals [2020] SGCA 16 Court of Appeal — Civil Appeals Nos 99, 108, 109 and 110 of 2019 Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Judith Prakash JA, Tay Yong Kwang JA and Steven Chong JA 22 January 2020 16 March 2020 Judgment reserved. Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 These appeals arise out of HC/OS 510/2018 (“OS 510”) and HC/OS 537/2018 (“OS 537”), which were initiated by the Attorney-General (“the AG”) to punish Mr Wham Kwok Han Jolovan (“Wham”) and Mr Tan Liang Joo John (“Tan”) respectively for contempt by scandalising the court (“scandalising contempt”) under s 3(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (Act 19 of 2016) (“the AJPA”).
  • (Dawn Tan 11 Mar 10) Final

    (Dawn Tan 11 Mar 10) Final

    About Dawn Dawn graduated with First Class Honours from the National University of Singapore Law School in 1997. In 2002 she took a Master of Laws degree from the Harvard Law School where she again achieved academic distinction. Dawn completed her pupilage under Mr Michael Hwang, S.C. at Allen & Gledhill (now Allen & Gledhill LLP) and was admitted as an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore in May 1998. Dawn is also admitted as a Solicitor in England and Dawn Tan Ly-Ru Wales and an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law of the State of New York. Between 1998 and 1999, Dawn was a Justices’ Law Clerk in the Chambers of the former Chief Justice, Mr Yong Pung How. She then served as an Assistant Registrar at the Supreme Court Contact Details Registry and concurrently took up teaching appointments at the National University of Singapore Law School and the then T: 656.225.3819 Department of Law of the Singapore Management University. F: 656.224.1891 Between 2004 and 2006, Dawn was Deputy Director Trade at the Ministry of Trade and Industry where she was involved in the E: [email protected] formulation and implementation of Singapore’s foreign trade policy. She negotiated the Trade in Goods, Rules of Origin and Qualifications Trade Remedies Chapters of Singapore’s Free Trade Agreements with India, Panama, Chile, New Zealand and Brunei (known as LL.B. (Hons), National University of the “Pacific 4”), Kuwait and Pakistan. She also advised on the Singapore (1997) legality of actions taken by other countries, such as anti-dumping LL.M., Harvard Law School (2002) measures, against Singapore companies.
  • Minlaw) Invited Applications for the Second Round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) Licences on 1 July 2012

    Minlaw) Invited Applications for the Second Round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) Licences on 1 July 2012

    PRESS RELEASE AWARD OF THE SECOND ROUND OF QUALIFYING FOREIGN LAW PRACTICE LICENCES The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) invited applications for the second round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) licences on 1 July 2012. Twenty-three applications were received by the closing date of 31 August 2012. 2 QFLP licences will be awarded to the following four firms (listed in alphabetical order): Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Jones Day; Linklaters, and Sidley Austin. 3 The firms will have up to six months from 1 April 2013 to commence their operations as QFLPs, and their licences will be valid for an initial period of five years from the respective start dates. Background 4 The QFLP scheme was introduced in 2008 following the recommendations of the Committee to Develop the Legal Sector chaired by Justice V K Rajah. The Committee, which included senior lawyers from top local firms, assessed that local firms and local lawyers would benefit from the increased foreign presence and competition over time. 5 The QFLP licences allow Foreign Law Practices (FLPs) to practise in permitted areas of Singapore law1. The scheme seeks to support the growth of key economic sectors, grow the legal sector, as well as to offer additional 1 Permitted areas are all areas except domestic areas of litigation and general practice, for example, criminal law, retail conveyancing, family law and administrative law. The QFLPs can practise the permitted areas through Singapore-qualified lawyers with practising certificates or foreign lawyers holding the foreign practitioner certificate. 1 opportunities for our lawyers. A total of six FLPs2 were awarded QFLP licences in the first round in 2008.
  • Ramesh S/O Krishnan V AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd

    Ramesh S/O Krishnan V AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd

    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2016] SGCA 47 Civil Appeal No 112 of 2015 Between RAMESH S/O KRISHNAN … Appellant And AXA LIFE INSURANCE SINGAPORE PTE LTD … Respondent In the matter of Suit No 1022 of 2012 Between RAMESH S/O KRISHNAN … Plaintiff And AXA LIFE INSURANCE SINGAPORE PTE LTD … Defendant JUDGMENT [Tort]—[Negligence]—[Breach of duty] [Tort]—[Negligence]—[Causation] This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd [2016] SGCA 47 Court of Appeal — Civil Appeal No 112 of 2015 Sundaresh Menon CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA and Steven Chong J 25 November 2015 27 July 2016 Judgment reserved. Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 Employers often require potential hirees to provide references from their former employers. Such references may serve as a basis for the prospective employer to assess the applicant’s character and abilities, and will likely have at least some, if not significant, bearing on the applicant’s chances of obtaining employment. For this and other reasons, which we will elaborate upon in the course of this judgment, it is important that employers prepare such references, when called upon to do so, in a fair and accurate manner to avoid unjustifiably prejudicing the former employee’s prospects of obtaining fresh employment. Before us, it was accepted that an employer has a duty of care when preparing such a reference.
  • 1 Singapore's Dominant Party System

    1 Singapore's Dominant Party System

    Tan, Kenneth Paul (2017) “Singapore’s Dominant Party System”, in Governing Global-City Singapore: Legacies and Futures after Lee Kuan Yew, Routledge 1 Singapore’s dominant party system On the night of 11 September 2015, pundits, journalists, political bloggers, aca- demics, and others in Singapore’s chattering classes watched in long- drawn amazement as the media reported excitedly on the results of independent Singa- pore’s twelfth parliamentary elections that trickled in until the very early hours of the morning. It became increasingly clear as the night wore on, and any optimism for change wore off, that the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) had swept the votes in something of a landslide victory that would have puzzled even the PAP itself (Zakir, 2015). In the 2015 general elections (GE2015), the incumbent party won 69.9 per cent of the total votes (see Table 1.1). The Workers’ Party (WP), the leading opposition party that had five elected members in the previous parliament, lost their Punggol East seat in 2015 with 48.2 per cent of the votes cast in that single- member constituency (SMC). With 51 per cent of the votes, the WP was able to hold on to Aljunied, a five-member group representation constituency (GRC), by a very slim margin of less than 2 per cent. It was also able to hold on to Hougang SMC with a more convincing win of 57.7 per cent. However, it was undoubtedly a hard defeat for the opposition. The strong performance by the PAP bucked the trend observed since GE2001, when it had won 75.3 per cent of the total votes, the highest percent- age since independence.
  • 331KB***Administrative and Constitutional

    331KB***Administrative and Constitutional

    (2016) 17 SAL Ann Rev Administrative and Constitutional Law 1 1. ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THIO Li-ann BA (Oxon) (Hons), LLM (Harvard), PhD (Cantab); Barrister (Gray’s Inn, UK); Provost Chair Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. Introduction 1.1 In terms of administrative law, the decided cases showed some insight into the role of courts in relation to: handing over town council management to another political party after a general election, the susceptibility of professional bodies which are vested with statutory powers like the Law Society review committee to judicial review; as well as important observations on substantive legitimate expectations and developments in exceptions to the rule against bias on the basis of necessity, and how this may apply to private as opposed to statutory bodies. Many of the other cases affirmed existing principles of administrative legality and the need for an evidential basis to sustain an argument. For example, a bare allegation of bias without evidence cannot be sustained; allegations of bias cannot arise when a litigant is simply made to follow well-established court procedures.1 1.2 Most constitutional law cases revolved around Art 9 issues. Judicial observations on the nature or scope of specific constitutional powers were made in cases not dealing directly with constitutional arguments. See Kee Oon JC in Karthigeyan M Kailasam v Public Prosecutor2 noted the operation of a presumption of legality and good faith in relation to acts of public officials; the Prosecution, in particular, is presumed “to act in the public interest at all times”, in relation to all prosecuted cases from the first instance to appellate level.
  • Visit on Dispute Resolution Services in Singapore 1

    Visit on Dispute Resolution Services in Singapore 1

    VISIT ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES IN SINGAPORE The Secretary for Justice, Mr Rimsky Yuen, SC, visited Singapore from The Secretary for April 2 to 3 to promote Hong Kong as a legal services hub and a dispute 1 Justice, Mr Rimsky resolution centre in the Asia Pacific Region, and to enhance ties with Yuen, SC (left), Singapore’s legal sector. meets Singapore’s Senior Minister Mr Yuen met the Senior Minister of State of the Ministry of Law, Ms of State of the Indranee Rajah and the Attorney-General, Mr Steven Chong Horng Ministry of Law, Siong, SC, to discuss matters of mutual interest including the direction 1 Ms Indranee Rajah. of legal policy in both jurisdictions. Mr Yuen (left) He later visited the Maxwell Chambers, which provides alternative dispute 2 meets Singapore’s resolution (ADR) facilities and services in Singapore. Mr Yuen met Mr Attorney-General, Philip Jeyaretnam and Mr Ban Jiun Ean, respectively the Chairman and Mr Steven Chong Chief Executive of the Maxwell Chambers. He also met Mr Minn Naing Horng Siong, SC Oo, the Chief Executive Officer of the Singapore International Arbitration (right). Centre. Mr Yuen exchanged views with them on the latest development of ADR in the international context, and highlighted the Department of Justice’s objective to enhance Hong Kong’s status as a regional hub for legal and ADR services. 2 Mr Yuen also took the opportunity to meet the Dean of the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, Professor Simon Chesterman; and the Dean of the School of Law, Singapore Management University, Professor Yeo Tiong Min.
  • Lee Kuan Yew V Chee Soon Juan (No 2)

    Lee Kuan Yew V Chee Soon Juan (No 2)

    Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan (No 2) [2005] SGHC 2 Case Number : Suit 1459/2001 Decision Date : 06 January 2005 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Kan Ting Chiu J Counsel Name(s) : Davinder Singh SC, Hri Kumar, Nicolas Tang (Drew and Napier LLC) for the plaintiff; The defendant in person Parties : Lee Kuan Yew — Chee Soon Juan Tort – Defamation – Damages – Assessment of damages – Defendant alleging plaintiff mishandling nation's funds – Principles of assessment – Quantification of damages Civil Procedure – Reconvening hearing – Defendant not attending assessment of damages hearing – Defendant applying to reconvene such hearing – Defendant applying to cross-examine plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel in application to reconvene hearing – Factors to consider when deciding whether to grant defendant's applications to reconvene hearing and to cross-examine plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel at such reconvened hearing 6 January 2005 Judgment reserved. Kan Ting Chiu J: 1 This matter came before me for damages to be assessed following a finding that the defendant had defamed the plaintiff. 2 The plaintiff, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, was the Senior Minister of Singapore before he assumed the office of Minister Mentor on 12 August 2004. The defendant, Dr Chee Soon Juan, was and is the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party. 3 This action arose out of words the defendant said in the course of campaigning in the 2001 Parliamentary General Elections. The subject words 4 On 28 October 2001, the defendant spoke at an election rally at Nee Soon Central. He told his audience: Yesterday, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was at his best.
  • Compromising on Consideration in Singapore: Gay Choon Ing V Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter Goh Yihan*

    Compromising on Consideration in Singapore: Gay Choon Ing V Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter Goh Yihan*

    Supreme Court of Singapore, 1 Supreme Court Lane, Singapore 178879, t: (65)-6332-1020 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ We are grateful to the authors, editors and publishers for their kind permission granted to post the respective articles on the Singapore Judicial College website. No article posted here may be circulated or reproduced without the prior permission of the author(s), editor(s) and publisher (where applicable). Our Vision: Excellence in judicial education and research. Our Mission: To provide and inspire continuing judicial learning and research to enhance the competency and professionalism of judges. Compromising on consideration in Singapore: Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter Goh Yihan* Introduction It is not often that a judgment contains a reference to Aris- tal difficulties’.5 The facts that allowed the opportunity to totle’s work or a coda at its conclusion. The recent Singa- re-evaluate consideration reflected the ebb and flow of pore Court of Appeal1 judgment of Gay Choon Ing v Loh friendship, captured by Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics Sze Ti Terence Peter2 (delivered by Andrew Phang JA) con- (Book VIII),6 and interestingly cited by the Court in a rare tained both, the latter of which an extensive judicial expo- judicial nod to classical literature.7 The appellant in Gay sition on the difficulties (and tentative solutions) relating to Choon Ing was a close friend of the respondent and was the contractual doctrine of consideration. This re-evalua- employed by the latter’s company in Kenya, ASP, until his tion of consideration at the slightest opportunity is unsur- resignation in 2004.
  • Michael Green QC, Fountain Court

    Michael Green QC, Fountain Court

    Finance, Property and Business Litigation in a Changing World 25-26 April 2013 Supreme Court Auditorium Organisers: Finance, Property and Business Litigation in a Changing World Plenary Session 1: Finance Litigation Chairperson Mr Alvin Yeo SC , WongPartnership LLP Speakers Ms Geraldine Andrews QC, Essex Court Chambers Mr Peter de Verneuil Smith, 3Verulam Buildings Mr Hri Kumar Nair SC, Drew & Napier LLC FINANCIAL DERIVATIVES LITIGATION Geraldine Andrews Q.C. Essex Court Chambers The 2008 financial crisis Sept-Oct 2008 – the eye of the storm • 7th Sept - Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae effectively nationalized by US Government. • 14th Sept - Merrill Lynch shotgun wedding to Bank of America amidst fears of liquidity crisis • 15th Sept - Lehman Bros filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. Periodically thereafter various of its subsidiaries did the same, including, on 3 Oct, LBSF, the dedicated subsidiary for derivative transactions. • 17th Sept - AIG, the USA䇻s largest insurer, was bailed out by US Govt with a loan of $85bn (insufficient funds to meet its CDS insurance obligations) Geraldine Andrews QC, Essex Court Chambers FINANCE, PROPERTY AND BUSINESS LITIGATION IN A CHANGING WORLD Sept-Oct 2008 – the eye of the storm • 17th Sept – Lloyds TSB takes over HBOS following a run on HBOS shares • 25th Sept – Washington Mutual sold to JP Morgan Chase for $1.9bn. • 3 Oct – US Congress approves 700bn bailout of the banks – the biggest financial rescue in US history. • 6-10 Oct - The worst week for the global stock market for 75 years. The Dow Jones index lost 22.1%, its worst week on record. Geraldine Andrews QC, Essex Court Chambers FINANCE, PROPERTY AND BUSINESS LITIGATION IN A CHANGING WORLD Sept-Oct 2008 – the eye of the storm • 7 Oct - Icelandic banking system collapses • 11 Oct Highest volatility day recorded in the 112 year history of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

  • Two Contrasting Approaches in the Interpretation of Outdated Statutory Provisions Yihan GOH Singapore Management University, [email protected]

    Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Research Collection School Of Law School of Law 12-2010 Two Contrasting Approaches in the Interpretation of Outdated Statutory Provisions Yihan GOH Singapore Management University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research Part of the Asian Studies Commons, Courts Commons, and the Legislation Commons Citation GOH, Yihan. Two Contrasting Approaches in the Interpretation of Outdated Statutory Provisions. (2010). Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. [2010], 530-545. Research Collection School Of Law. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1415 This Journal Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Collection School Of Law by an authorized administrator of Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. For more information, please email [email protected]. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies [2010] 530-545 Published in Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, [2010] pp 530-545. TWO CONTRASTING APPROACHES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF OUTDATED STATUTORY PROVISIONS WX v. WW' AAG v. Estate ofAAH, deceased2 GOH YIHAN* I. INTRODUCTION Some statutes in operation today were passed a long time ago. Inevitably, through the passage of time, social norms at the time of enactment may now be unrecognis- able. The legislative intent at the time of enactment may also seem outdated in more modem times. Judges interpreting specific provisions of these statutes may therefore encounter problems in ensuring a 'just' result in an instant case.