DOCSLIB.ORG

Eighteenth Annual International Maritime Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eighteenth Annual International Maritime Law EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY TEAM 10 ON BEHALF OF: AGAINST: INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD FURNACE TRADING PTE LTD AND IDONCARE BERJAYA UTAMA PTY LTD CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS COUNSEL Margery Harry Declan Haiqiu Ai Godber Noble Zhu TEAM 10 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... III LIST OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................ V STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................ 1 APPLICABLE LAW ......................................................................................................................... 2 I. SINGAPOREAN LAW APPLIES TO ALL ASPECTS OF THE DISPUTE ............................................... 2 A. Singaporean law governs the procedure of the arbitration ................................................... 2 B. Singaporean law is the substantive law applying to FURNACE and INFERNO’s dispute ....... 2 C. Singaporean law is also the substantive law applying to FURNACE and IDONCARE’s dispute ................................................................................................................................... 3 ARGUMENTS ON THE INTERIM APPLICATION FOR SALE OF CARGO ......................... 4 II. A VALID AND ENFORCEABLE LIEN ON THE CARGO HAS BEEN EXERCISED ................................ 4 A. A right to lien on cargo in FURNACE’s favour arises under the Bill of Lading .................... 5 B. The lien on cargo may be exercised as INFERNO owes a freight debt to FURNACE .............. 5 C. Imlam properly exercised the lien on cargo ......................................................................... 7 1. Imlam has possession of the cargo ................................................................................. 7 2. The exercise of the lien was within reasonable limits .................................................... 8 III. THE TRIBUNAL CAN AND SHOULD ORDER THE SALE OF THE CARGO ....................................... 8 A. Tribunal has the power to order a sale of the cargo pendente lite ....................................... 8 1. The cargo forms part of the subject-matter of the dispute .............................................. 9 2. A sale of the cargo is necessary .................................................................................... 10 3. In the alternative, the parties have contractually agreed to give the Tribunal the wider power to make interim awards as it sees fit .................................................................. 11 4. The location of the cargo is immaterial to the Tribunal’s power to order a sale .......... 12 I TEAM 10 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT B. The Tribunal should exercise its discretion and order a sale of the cargo ........................ 12 ARGUMENTS ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM ................................................................... 13 IV. INFERNO BREACHED THE VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY BY FAILING TO NOMINATE A LEGITIMATE DISCHARGE PORT IN TIME .................................................................................. 13 A. INFERNO’s obligation to nominate a discharge port was not fulfilled by the attempted nomination of Busan .......................................................................................................... 14 B. INFERNO breached the agreement by not declaring a discharge port in time .................... 16 V. THE VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY WAS NOT FRUSTRATED .......................................................... 16 VI. FURNACE HAS A VALID LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHT PAYABLE BY IDONCARE ................................ 17 A. FURNACE possesses the right to collect sub-freight from IDONCARE ................................ 17 B. FURNACE perfected its lien by sending written notice to IDONCARE ................................. 19 C. FURNACE retains its lien, despite termination of the Voyage Charterparty ....................... 20 VII. FURNACE’S TERMINATION OF THE VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY WAS NOT WRONGFUL ........... 20 A. INFERNO’s conduct constituted a repudiation of the agreement ........................................ 21 B. INFERNO’s failure to comply with FURNACE’s notice to perform gave FURNACE the right to terminate the Voyage Charterparty ............................................................................... 22 1. FURNACE was entitled to give notice to perform .......................................................... 22 2. The time stipulated for performance by the notice was reasonable .............................. 22 C. FURNACE’s election to terminate was not wrongful .......................................................... 23 VIII. FURNACE IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR BREACH FROM INFERNO ..................................... 23 A. FURNACE can recover detention costs caused by INFERNO’s breach ................................. 24 B. FURNACE is indemnified for costs incurred after termination of the Voyage Charterparty ....................................................................................................................... 24 REQUEST FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................... 25 II TEAM 10 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT ABBREVIATIONS art Article BBB Before Breaking Bulk Bill of Lading Bill no. IMOBL11223344X, dated 4 October, in the custom form of Imlam Consignorist GmbH, between Imlam and IDONCARE Cargo 80,000 Mt 10% MOLOO Australian Steam Coal COAL-OREVOY “COAL-OREVOY” Standard Coal and Ore Charter Party Clarification 2017 International Maritime Law Arbitration Moot Scenario Clarifications Fixture Recap Email of concluded terms of charterparty between FURNACE and INFERNO, from Eric Yan to Gordon Grill, dated 1 September 2016 Freight Clause Clause 19 of the Fixture Recap FURNACE Furnace Trading Pte Ltd IAA International Arbitration Act (Singapore, cap 143A, 2002 rev ed) IDONCARE Idoncare Berjaya Utama Pty Ltd Imlam Imlam Consignorist GmbH INFERNO Inferno Resources Sdn Bhd Lien Clause Clause 19(a) of the “COAL-OREVOY” Standard Coal and Ore Charter Party LT Local Time Master Tan Xiao Ming Model Law UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration (1985) Nomination Clause Clause 16 of the Fixture Recap Parties FURNACE, INFERNO and IDONCARE III TEAM 10 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT Record 2017 International Maritime Law Arbitration Moot Scenario s Section sch Schedule rd SCMA Rules Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration Rules (2015, 3 ed) Sub-Voyage Charterparty Voyage Charterparty, between INFERNO and IDONCARE, date unknown Tardy Tessa M.V. Tardy Tessa Time Charterparty Time Charterparty, between Imlam and Furnace, dated 15 February 2016 Voyage Charterparty Fixture Recap and “COAL-OREVOY” Standard Coal and Ore Charter Party, between Furnace and Inferno, dated 1 September 2016 IV TEAM 10 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT LIST OF AUTHORITIES CASES AND ARBITRAL AWARDS Referred to at page: Actis Co Ltd v The Sanko Steamship Co Ltd (‘The Aquacharm’) 8 [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 7 A/S Tank v Agence Maritime L Strauss (1939) 64 Ll L Rep 19 16 Aktieselskabet Olivebank v Dansk Svorlsyre Fabrik [1919] 2 KB 162 15, 24 Albemarle Supply Co Ltd v Hind & Co [1928] 1 KB 307 7, 8 Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd v Comfort Resources Pte Ltd 23 [2009] SLR 602 American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 12 Annangel Glory Compania Naviera SA v M Golodetz Ltd Middle 5, 17, 18, 19, 20 East Marketing Corporation (UK) Ltd and Clive Robert Hammond (‘The Annangel Glory’) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 45 Associated Asian Securities Pte Ltd v Lee Kam Wah [1992] 3 19 SLR(R) 812 Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng [2017] SGCA 6 (16 January 9 2017) Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation v Stephens (Henry) 4 Shipping Co and Tex Dilan Shipping Co [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 389 Bank of Boston Connecticut v European Grain and Shipping (‘The 7 Dominique’) [1989] AC 1056 Behzadi v Shaftesbury Hotels Ltd [1992] Ch 1 22 Blackburn v Flavelle (1881) 6 App Cas 628 14 Brani Readymix Pte Ltd v Yee Hong Pte Ltd [1994] SLR 1004 21 British Movietonews Ltd v London and District Cinemas Ltd [1952] 17 AC 166 Care Shipping Corp v Latin American Shipping Corp (‘The Cebu’) 19 [1983] QB 1005 Care Shipping Corporation v Itex Itagrani Export SA (‘The Cebu’) 3, 21 (No 2) [1993] QB 1 V TEAM 10 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT Cascade Shipping Inc v Eka Jaya Agencies (S) Pte Ltd [1993] 1 8, 17, 20 SLR(R) 187 Challenger Technologies Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor [1994] 9 SLR(R) 849 Chua June Ching Michelle v Chai Hoi Tong [2011] 4 SLR 418 8 Chuan Hong Petrol Station Pte Ltd v Shell Singapore (Pte) Ltd 13 [1992] 2 SLR 1 Colonial Bank v European Grain & Shipping Ltd (‘The Dominique’) 6 [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 239 (Queen’s Bench) Colonial Bank v European Grain & Shipping Ltd (‘The Dominique’) 6 [1988] 3 WLR 60 (Court of Appeal) Compania Naviera General SA v Kerametal Ltd (‘The Lorna I’) 6, 7 [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 373 D Amico Shipping Italia SP v Endofa DMCC [2016] EWHC 2223 6 (Comm) (24 June 2016) Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v The Minister of 2 Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan [2010] 2 Lloyd's Rep 691 Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] 16, 17 AC 696 Donmar Productions Ltd v Bart [1967] 2 All ER 338 9 Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd [2013] 3 SLR 9 354 “Dwima
Load more

Recommended publications
  • This Paper Has Been Published in the Journal of Business Law and The
    Supreme Court of Singapore, 1 Supreme Court Lane, Singapore 178879, t: (65)-6332-1020 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ This paper has been published in the Journal of Business Law and the Supreme Court Library Queensland gratefully acknowledges the permission of the editor, Professor Robert Merkin, to reprint it in the Yearbook. A version of this essay was delivered at the Current Legal Issues Seminar in the Banco Court on 12 September 2013. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Ms Andrea Gan and Mr Jonathan Yap, Justices’ Law Clerks, Supreme Court of Singapore, as well as to Asst Prof Goh Yihan of the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, for their helpful comments and suggestions. I would also like to dedicate this essay to all the participants who displayed an extraordinary (and, I might add, rare) degree of enthusiasm and (above all) friendship. All errors remain mine alone. Further, all views expressed in this essay are personal views only and do not reflect the views of the Supreme Court of Singapore. Andrew Phang 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. The Challenge of Principled Gap-Filling — A Study of Implied Terms in a Comparative Context by The Honourable Justice Andrew Phang Boon Leong* There has been a veritable wealth of literature on implied terms — ranging from doctoral theses1 to book chapters,2 articles3 and (more recently) a book.4 What accounts for this interest? Perhaps the simplest explanation is that it is an extremely important topic with at least two important functions — one substantive, the other theoretical.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Singapore Law: a Bicentennial Retrospective1
    (2020) 32 SAcLJ 804 (Published on e-First 8 May 2020) THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGAPORE LAW: A BICENTENNIAL RETROSPECTIVE1 The present article reviews (in broad brushstrokes) the status of Singapore law during its bicentennial year. It is not only about origins but also about growth – in particular, the autochthonous or indigenous growth of the Singapore legal system (particularly since the independence of Singapore as a nation state on 9 August 1965). The analysis of this growth is divided into quantitative as well as qualitative parts. In particular, the former constitutes an empirical analysis which attempts – for the very first time − to tell the development of Singapore law through numbers, building on emerging techniques in data visualisation and empirical legal studies. Andrew PHANG Judge of Appeal, Supreme Court of Singapore. GOH Yihan Professor of Law, School of Law, Singapore Management University. Jerrold SOH Assistant Professor of Law, School of Law, Singapore Management University; Co-Founder, Lex Quanta. I. Introduction 1 The present article, which reviews (in broad brushstrokes) the status of Singapore law during its bicentennial year since the founding of Singapore by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819, is of particular significance as English law constitutes the foundation of Singapore law. The role of Raffles and his successors, therefore, could not have been more directly 1 All views expressed in the present article are personal views only and do not reflect in any way the views of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the Singapore Management University or Lex Quanta. Although this article ought, ideally, to have been published last year, the immense amount of case law that had to be analysed has led to a slight delay.
    [Show full text]
  • SOL LLM Brochure 2021 Copy
    SMU – Right in the Heart of Asia’s Hub, Singapore Masters of Laws In the dynamic, cosmopolitan hub that is Singapore, you will find a vibrant city-state that pulses with the diversity of both East and West. LL.M. in Judicial Studies Situated at the cross-roads of the world, Singapore is home to multinational companies and thousands of small and medium-sized LL.M. in Cross-border Business and Finance Law in Asia enterprises flourishing in a smart city renowned for its business excellence and connectivity. With its strong infrastructure, political Dual LL.M. in Commercial Law (Singapore & London) stability and respect for intellectual property rights, this City in a Garden offers you unique opportunities to develop as a global citizen. Thorough. Transnational. Transformative. Tapping into the energy of the city is a university with a difference — the Singapore Management University. Our six schools: the School of Accountancy, Lee Kong Chian School of Business, School of Computing and Information Systems, School of Economics, Yong Pung How School of Law, and School of Social Sciences form the country’s only city campus, perfectly sited to foster strategic links with businesses and the community. Modelled after the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, SMU generates leading-edge research with global impact and produces broad-based, creative and entrepreneurial leaders for a knowledge-based economy. Discover a multi-faceted lifestyle right here at SMU, in the heart of Singapore. The SMU Masters Advantage GLOBAL RECOGNITION SMU is globally recognised as one of the best specialised universities in Asia and the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon
    RESPONSE BY CHIEF JUSTICE SUNDARESH MENON OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2018 Monday, 8 January 2018 Mr Attorney, Mr Vijayendran, Members of the Bar, Honoured Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen: I. Introduction 1. It is my pleasure, on behalf of the Judiciary, to welcome you all to the Opening of this Legal Year. I particularly wish to thank the Honourable Chief Justice Prof Dr M Hatta Ali and Justice Takdir Rahmadi of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, the Right Honourable Tun Md Raus Sharif, Chief Justice of Malaysia, and our other guests from abroad, who have made the effort to travel here to be with us this morning. II. Felicitations 2. 2017 was a year when we consolidated the ongoing development of the Supreme Court Bench, and I shall begin my response with a brief recap of the major changes, most of which have been alluded to. 1 A. Court of Appeal 3. Justice Steven Chong was appointed as a Judge of Appeal on 1 April 2017. This was in anticipation of Justice Chao Hick Tin’s retirement on 27 September 2017, after five illustrious decades in the public service. In the same context, Justice Andrew Phang was appointed Vice-President of the Court of Appeal. While we will feel the void left by Justice Chao’s retirement, I am heartened that we have in place a strong team of judges to lead us forward; and delighted that Justice Chao will continue contributing to the work of the Supreme Court, following his appointment, a few days ago, as a Senior Judge.
    [Show full text]
  • Singapore C of a on Consideration in Variation of Contracts.Pdf
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGCA 106 Civil Appeal No 45 of 2019 Between Ma Hongjin … Appellant And SCP Holdings Pte Ltd … Respondent In the matter of HC/Suit No 765 of 2016 Between Ma Hongjin … Plaintiff And (1) SCP Holdings Pte Ltd (2) Biomax Technologies Pte Ltd … Defendants GROUNDS OF DECISION [Contract] — [Consideration] — [Necessity] [Contract] — [Consideration] — [Failure] [Contract] — [Variation] — [Consideration] [Civil Procedure] — [Pleadings] [Civil Procedure] — [No case to answer] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................4 THE DECISION BELOW ..............................................................................7 THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL.............................................9 ISSUES ............................................................................................................10 OUR DECISION ............................................................................................11 ISSUE 1: THE APPLICABLE TEST UPON A SUBMISSION OF NO CASE TO ANSWER ........................................................................................................11 ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAD ADEQUATELY PLEADED THAT THE SA WAS SUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATION ...............................................16 ISSUE 3: WHETHER CL 9.3 OF THE CLA DISPENSED WITH THE NEED FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION
    [Show full text]
  • OPENING of the LEGAL YEAR 2021 Speech by Attorney-General
    OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2021 Speech by Attorney-General, Mr Lucien Wong, S.C. 11 January 2021 May it please Your Honours, Chief Justice, Justices of the Court of Appeal, Judges of the Appellate Division, Judges and Judicial Commissioners, Introduction 1. The past year has been an extremely trying one for the country, and no less for my Chambers. It has been a real test of our fortitude, our commitment to defend and advance Singapore’s interests, and our ability to adapt to unforeseen difficulties brought about by the COVID-19 virus. I am very proud of the good work my Chambers has done over the past year, which I will share with you in the course of my speech. I also acknowledge that the past year has shown that we have some room to grow and improve. I will outline the measures we have undertaken as an institution to address issues which we faced and ensure that we meet the highest standards of excellence, fairness and integrity in the years to come. 2. My speech this morning is in three parts. First, I will talk about the critical legal support which we provided to the Government throughout the COVID-19 crisis. Second, I will discuss some initiatives we have embarked on to future-proof the organisation and to deal with the challenges which we faced this past year, including digitalisation and workforce changes. Finally, I will share my reflections about the role we play in the criminal justice system and what I consider to be our grave and solemn duty as prosecutors.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019 | 3 About the Academy
    ANNUAL REPORT ACADEMY OF MEDICINE 2019 SINGAPORE Committed to specialist education and training since 1957 CONTENT ACADEMY OF MEDICINE, SINGAPORE The Academy 1 Master’s Message 2 The 2019-2020 Council 5 The Academy 5 Representation at Ministry of Health and Related Organisations 6 Year in Review 2019 7 Finance and Establishment Review Committee Events 8 Dinner & Dialogue with Senior Minister of State (Health) 9 AMS Chinese New Year Celebration 9 Formation of the Chapter of Pain Medicine Physicians 10 Induction Comitia 2019 10 Public Forum 2019 Sponsorships, Grants and Awards 11 Awards 11 Visiting Academicians 12 Visiting Lecturers 12 Travel Assistance 12 Letters of Support Deanery 13 In-Training Examinations 14 Diploma in Hospital Medicine 14 Mandatory Geriatric Medicine Modular Course 14 Master of Health Professionals Education, Singapore (MHPE-S) 14 2019 Intake (Unit One) and 2018 Intake (Unit Seven) 15 Self Learning Module (SLM) 15 CPD Bulletin 15 AMS Fellowship Training Programme 16 MOH Contract of Services for Healthcare Services 16 Dental Specialist Accreditation Assessment 16 Staff Registrar Scheme Office of Professional Affairs 18 Guidelines, Advisories & Consensus Committee (GACC) 21 Ad-Hoc OPA Activity – PDPA Awareness Talk 2019 21 Medical Experts Committee (MEC) 23 Faculty of Medical Experts (FME) Standing Committees 24 Membership 25 Joint Committee on Specialist Training 26 Publications Past Masters and Honorary Fellows List Our People 30 Staff List Finance Statements for the Financial Year Ended December 2019 COLLEGES AND
    [Show full text]
  • Paginator.Book([2006] 2 SLR(R) 0690.Fm)
    paginator.book Page 690 Monday, November 23, 2009 3:54 PM 690 SINGAPORE LAW REPORTS (REISSUE) [2006] 2 SLR(R) The Polo/Lauren Co, LP v Shop In Department Store Pte Ltd [2006] SGCA 14 Court of Appeal — Civil Appeal No 67 of 2005 Yong Pung How CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA and Tan Lee Meng J 21 February; 31 March; 6 April 2006 Trade Marks and Trade Names — Infringement — Appellant alleging respondent’s sign infringing appellant’s registered word mark — Applicable test for infringement under s 27(2)(b) Trade Marks Act — Whether respondent’s sign similar to appellant’s word mark — Whether goods to which defendant’s sign and plaintiff's mark applying similar — Whether likelihood of confusion on the part of the public existing — Section 27(2)(b) Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 1999 Rev Ed) Facts The appellant was the registered proprietor of six trade marks including the “POLO” word mark (“the word mark”). The respondent operated five suburban stores that sold items such as clothing, bags, handbags, shoes, watches and household stuff at prices affordable to the masses. The respondent had applied to the Registry of Trade Marks to have the sign “POLO PACIFIC” (“the sign”) in the same class as the word mark. This application was accepted by the Registry for publication, although it was pending opposition by the appellant. In the meantime, the respondent had started to sell goods bearing the sign. The appellant considered this to be a breach of its rights under the word mark and commenced suit, alleging that the respondent had breached s 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 1999 Rev Ed) as well as a prior undertaking not to infringe the appellant’s marks.
    [Show full text]
  • Singapore Judgments
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2021] SGCA 57 Civil Appeal No 113 of 2020 Between (1) Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd (2) Crest Catalyst Equity Pte Ltd (3) The Enterprise Fund III Ltd (4) VMF3 Ltd (5) Value Monetization III Ltd … Appellants And (1) OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corporation Ltd) (2) IHC Medical Re Pte Ltd … Respondents In the matter of Suit No 441 of 2016 Between (1) OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corporation Ltd) (2) IHC Medical Re Pte Ltd … Plaintiffs And (1) Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd (2) Crest Catalyst Equity Pte Ltd (3) The Enterprise Fund III Ltd (4) VMF3 Ltd (5) Value Monetization III Ltd (6) Fan Kow Hin (7) Aathar Ah Kong Andrew (8) Lim Beng Choo … Defendants JUDGMENT [Civil Procedure] — [Costs] [Civil Procedure] — [Judgment and orders] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER ISSUE.............................................................3 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................3 THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS .................................................................................4 VMF3 and VMIII........................................................................................4 The respondents .........................................................................................5 OUR DECISION.................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • OPENING of the LEGAL YEAR 2019 Speech by Attorney-General
    OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2019 Speech by Attorney-General, Mr Lucien Wong, S.C. Monday, 7 January 2019 Supreme Court Building, Level Basement 2, Auditorium May it please Your Honours, Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the Supreme Court, Introduction: AGC in Support of the Government, for the People 1 2018 was a fast-paced year for the Government and for the Attorney-General’s Chambers. The issues occupying the thoughts of Singapore’s leaders were complex and varied, with several key themes coming to the fore. These themes shaped our work over the past year, as we strove to be a strategic partner in support of the Government’s plans and initiatives, for the benefit of our country and its citizens. I will touch on three of these themes. 2 The first theme was our Smart Nation. This initiative aims to tap on the ongoing digital revolution in order to transform Singapore through technology. The Smart Nation vision is for Singapore to be a world-class leader in the field of digital innovation, resting on the triple pillars of a digital economy, digital government, and digital society. The Smart Nation revolution will play a critical part in ensuring our continued competitiveness on the world stage, powered by digital innovation. 1 3 Data sharing was and continues to be a critical aspect of this initiative. To this end, a new law was passed in 2018 which introduced a data sharing regime among different agencies in the Singapore Government. The Public Sector (Governance) Act 2018, which was drafted by our Chambers in support of this initiative, underpins and formalises a data sharing framework for the Singapore public sector.
    [Show full text]
  • [2020] SGCA 108 Civil Appeal No 34 of 2019 Between (1) BRS … Appellant and (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Respondents in the Matter of Or
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGCA 108 Civil Appeal No 34 of 2019 Between (1) BRS … Appellant And (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Respondents In the matter of Originating Summons No 770 of 2018 Between (1) BRS … Plaintiff And (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Defendants Civil Appeal No 35 of 2019 Between (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Appellants And (1) BRS … Respondent In the matter of Originating Summons No 512 of 2018 Between (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Plaintiffs And (1) BRS (2) BRT … Defendants JUDGMENT [Arbitration] — [Award] — [Recourse against award] — [Setting aside] — [Whether three-month time limit extended by request for correction] [Arbitration] — [Award] — [Recourse against award] — [Setting aside] — [Breach of natural justice] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND FACTS ................................................................................2 THE PARTIES ...................................................................................................3 THE SPA.........................................................................................................3 THE BULK POWER TRANSMISSION AGREEMENT .............................................6 DELAYS IN THE PROJECT AND COST OVERRUN ...............................................6 THE ARBITRATION...........................................................................................7 Relief sought...............................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Valedictory Reference in Honour of Justice Chao Hick Tin 27 September 2017 Address by the Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon
    VALEDICTORY REFERENCE IN HONOUR OF JUSTICE CHAO HICK TIN 27 SEPTEMBER 2017 ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SUNDARESH MENON -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon Deputy Prime Minister Teo, Minister Shanmugam, Prof Jayakumar, Mr Attorney, Mr Vijayendran, Mr Hoong, Ladies and Gentlemen, 1. Welcome to this Valedictory Reference for Justice Chao Hick Tin. The Reference is a formal sitting of the full bench of the Supreme Court to mark an event of special significance. In Singapore, it is customarily done to welcome a new Chief Justice. For many years we have not observed the tradition of having a Reference to salute a colleague leaving the Bench. Indeed, the last such Reference I can recall was the one for Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, which happened on this very day, the 27th day of September, exactly 27 years ago. In that sense, this is an unusual event and hence I thought I would begin the proceedings by saying something about why we thought it would be appropriate to convene a Reference on this occasion. The answer begins with the unique character of the man we have gathered to honour. 1 2. Much can and will be said about this in the course of the next hour or so, but I would like to narrate a story that took place a little over a year ago. It was on the occasion of the annual dinner between members of the Judiciary and the Forum of Senior Counsel. Mr Chelva Rajah SC was seated next to me and we were discussing the recently established Judicial College and its aspiration to provide, among other things, induction and continuing training for Judges.
    [Show full text]