Lc2012 Trial Advocacy (Ay 2020/2021) – External Tutors’ Profiles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

LC2012 TRIAL ADVOCACY (AY 2020/2021) – EXTERNAL TUTORS’ PROFILES Brief Bio – Mr Wilson Wong Mr Wilson Wong is currently the Managing Director and Head of Legal (Asia) at a private bank headquartered in Switzerland, and with offices in various countries, including in Singapore. After graduating from NUS Law in 2002, Wilson began his career as a lawyer in private practice at Drew & Napier LLC, where he practised civil and commercial litigation for 8 years. He left Drew & Napier to become Director (Legal) in the Singapore branch of a boutique private bank renowned in England and mainland Europe in 2010, before joining his current bank in 2015. Prior to leaving practice, Wilson was a trainer for the Advocacy module of the Part B course run by the Singapore Institute of Legal Education. He was also actively involved in advocacy training at Drew & Napier LLC. Fun Fact: Wilson was responsible for training the current Course Convenor for the LC2012 Trial Advocacy module – Ms Sim Khadijah (aka “Ms J”) – when she was representing Singapore in the Australian Law Students’ Association Advocacy Competition in Perth in 2005. Though Ms J did not win the ALSA Competition, she credits much of her advocacy skills to her formative training with Wilson in Year 2 of Law School. Cases of Interest ▪ Mak Chik Lun & Ors v Loh Kim Her [2003] 4 SLR(R) 338 – Assisting Counsel to Hri Kumar Nair (as he then was) ▪ George Raymond Zage III v Ho Chi Kwong [2010] 2 SLR 589 – Assisting Counsel to Hri Kumar Nair, S.C. ▪ Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd & Anor [2010] 1 SLR 52 – Assisting Counsel to Davinder Singh, S.C. Outside of the law, Wilson is an avid Liverpool FC fan. He loves to sing, read, watch mindless TV serials, and eat good food. 1 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

4 Comparative Law and Constitutional Interpretation in Singapore: Insights from Constitutional Theory 114 ARUN K THIRUVENGADAM
Evolution of a Revolution Between 1965 and 2005, changes to Singapore’s Constitution were so tremendous as to amount to a revolution. These developments are comprehensively discussed and critically examined for the ﬁrst time in this edited volume. With its momentous secession from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, Singapore had the perfect opportunity to craft a popularly-endorsed constitution. Instead, it retained the 1958 State Constitution and augmented it with provisions from the Malaysian Federal Constitution. The decision in favour of stability and gradual change belied the revolutionary changes to Singapore’s Constitution over the next 40 years, transforming its erstwhile Westminster-style constitution into something quite unique. The Government’s overriding concern with ensuring stability, public order, Asian values and communitarian politics, are not without their setbacks or critics. This collection strives to enrich our understanding of the historical antecedents of the current Constitution and offers a timely retrospective assessment of how history, politics and economics have shaped the Constitution. It is the ﬁrst collaborative effort by a group of Singapore constitutional law scholars and will be of interest to students and academics from a range of disciplines, including comparative constitutional law, political science, government and Asian studies. Dr Li-ann Thio is Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore where she teaches public international law, constitutional law and human rights law. She is a Nominated Member of Parliament (11th Session). Dr Kevin YL Tan is Director of Equilibrium Consulting Pte Ltd and Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore where he teaches public law and media law.
[Show full text]
The Decline of Oral Advocacy Opportunities: Concerns and Implications
Published on 6 September 2018 THE DECLINE OF ORAL ADVOCACY OPPORTUNITIES: CONCERNS AND IMPLICATIONS [2018] SAL Prac 1 Singapore has produced a steady stream of illustrious and highly accomplished advocates over the decades. Without a doubt, these advocates have lifted and contributed to the prominence and reputation of the profession’s ability to deliver dispute resolution services of the highest quality. However, the conditions in which these advocates acquired, practised and honed their advocacy craft are very different from those present today. One trend stands out, in particular: the decline of oral advocacy opportunities across the profession as a whole. This is no trifling matter. The profession has a moral duty, if not a commercial imperative, to apply itself to addressing this phenomenon. Nicholas POON* LLB (Singapore Management University); Director, Breakpoint LLC; Advocate and Solicitor, Supreme Court of Singapore. I. Introduction 1 Effective oral advocacy is the bedrock of dispute resolution.1 It is also indisputable that effective oral advocacy is the product of training and experience. An effective advocate is forged in the charged atmosphere of courtrooms and arbitration chambers. An effective oral advocate does not become one by dint of age. 2 There is a common perception that sustained opportunities for oral advocacy in Singapore, especially for junior lawyers, are on the decline. This commentary suggests * This commentary reflects the author’s personal opinion. The author would like to thank the editors of the SAL Practitioner, as well as Thio Shen Yi SC and Paul Tan for reading through earlier drafts and offering their thoughtful insights. 1 Throughout this piece, any reference to “litigation” is a reference to contentious dispute resolution practice, including but not limited to court and arbitration proceedings, unless otherwise stated.
[Show full text]
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.
[Show full text]
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.
[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]
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin V Lee Kuan Yew [2001]
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew [2001] SGCA 55 Case Number : CA 600023/2001 Decision Date : 22 August 2001 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chao Hick Tin JA; L P Thean JA Counsel Name(s) : Appellant in person; Davinder Singh SC and Hri Kumar (Drew & Napier LLC) for the respondent Parties : Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin — Lee Kuan Yew Civil Procedure – Striking out – Dismissal of action for want of prosecution – Principles applicable – Inordinate and inexcusable delay – Respondent's delay of over two years without reason or explanation – Whether delay amounts to intentional and contumelious default – Prejudice by reason of delay – Whether unavailability of services of particular Queen's Counsel amounts to prejudice – Whether inordinate and inexcusable delay amounts to abuse of court process – Limitation period yet to expire – Whether action should be struck out Statutory Interpretation – Statutes – Repealing – Repeal of Rules of Court O 3 r 5 – Effect of repeal – Distinction between substantive and procedural rights – Whether amendments to procedural rules affect rights of parties retrospectively – Whether rights under repealed order survive – s 16(1)(c) Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1999 Ed) Words and Phrases – 'Contumelious conduct' (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction This appeal arose from an application by Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, the appellant (`the appellant`), to strike out the action in Suit 224/97 initiated by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the respondent (`the respondent`). The application was heard before the senior assistant registrar and was dismissed. The appellant appealed to a judge-in-chambers, and the appeal was heard before Lai Siu Chiu J. The judge dismissed it and against her decision the appellant now brings this appeal.
[Show full text]
1—Singapore Communitarianism and the Case for Conserving 377A
Singapore Journal of Legal Studies [2008] 347–394 “DON’T EVER TAKE A FENCE DOWN UNTIL YOU KNOW THE REASON IT WAS PUT UP”1—SINGAPORE COMMUNITARIANISM AND THE CASE FOR CONSERVING 377A Yvonne C. L. Lee∗ A rare parliamentary petition which sought the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code that criminalises acts of gross indecency between male adults, was presented and debated in Parliament in October 2007. This article critically examines the constitutional law dimension and issues in relation to the 377A debate in Singapore. It highlights the primary jurisprudential thrust of the competing arguments and assumptions. It advances and defends the communitarian case for preserving 377A which the author argues is both normatively desirable and empirically reﬂective of existing Singapore law and policy. With particular regard to the Singapore context, it reﬂects on how democratic societies should address questions of law and profound moral disagreement, the importance of civil debate, and whether the legislative or judicial forum is most appropriate for making decisions on morally controversial questions. I. 377A: The Hart-Devlin Debate Redux For only the second time in Singapore history,2 a petition was presented to Parliament on 22 October 2007, by a nominated Member of Parliament (‘MP’)3 calling for the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code4 (‘377A’). This prohibits all acts of gross indecency, such as homosexual sodomy, in public or private, between two adult ∗ LL.M. (Michigan), LL.B. (NUS); Attorney & Counsellor (New York State), Advocate & Solicitor (Singapore); Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. I thank several colleagues for our lively exchanges on this issue.
[Show full text]
Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218) (Section 51) Statement of the Poll After Counting the Ballots
FRIDAY, MAY 13, 2011 1 First published in the Government Gazette, Electronic Edition, on 12th May 2011 at 2.00 pm. No. 1268 — PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT (CHAPTER 218) (SECTION 51) STATEMENT OF THE POLL AFTER COUNTING THE BALLOTS ELECTORAL DIVISION OF BISHAN-TOA PAYOH ‡Number of Ballot Papers Issued 141,760 Number of Ballot Papers cast for Name of Candidate Party ‡Number of Ballot Papers Chiam See Tong SPP 47,205 Lee Yeong Wee Wilfred Leung Mohamad Hamim Aliyas Benjamin Pwee Hri Kumar Nair PAP 62,385 Ng Eng Hen Josephine Teo Wong Kan Seng Zainudin Nordin ‡Total Number of Ballot Papers cast for the above Candidates 109,590 Number of *Rejected Ballot Papers 2,087 Total Number of Ballot Papers found in the ballot boxes 111,677 Number of Unused Ballot Papers undetached from the books 30,061 Number of †Spoilt Ballot Papers 22 ‡TOTAL 141,760 *A Rejected Ballot Paper means a ballot paper which has been handed by the presiding officer to an elector to cast his vote but which, at the close of the poll, has been found in the ballot box unmarked or so improperly marked it cannot be counted. †A Spoilt Ballot Paper means a ballot paper which, on polling day, has not been deposited in the ballot box, but has been found by the presiding officer to be spoilt or improperly printed or which has been handed by the presiding officer to an elector to cast his vote, and (a) has been spoilt in marking by the elector, and (b) has been handed back to the presiding officer and exchanged for another.
[Show full text]
Votes and Proceedings of the Twelfth Parliament of Singapore
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWELFTH PARLIAMENT OF SINGAPORE ______________ First Session ______________ FRIDAY, 17 FEBRUARY 2012 No. 14 1.30 pm 89 PRESENT: Mr SPEAKER (Mr MICHAEL PALMER (Punggol East)). Mr ANG HIN KEE (Ang Mo Kio). Mr ANG WEI NENG (Jurong). Mr BAEY YAM KENG (Tampines). Mr CHAN CHUN SING (Tanjong Pagar), Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports and Minister of State, Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. Mr CHEN SHOW MAO (Aljunied). Dr CHIA SHI-LU (Tanjong Pagar). Mrs LINA CHIAM (Non-Constituency Member). Mr CHARLES CHONG (Joo Chiat), Deputy Speaker. Mr CHRISTOPHER DE SOUZA (Holland-Bukit Timah). Ms FAIZAH JAMAL (Nominated Member). Mr NICHOLAS FANG (Nominated Member). Assoc. Prof. FATIMAH LATEEF (Marine Parade). Mr ARTHUR FONG (West Coast). Mr CEDRIC FOO CHEE KENG (Pioneer). Mdm FOO MEE HAR (West Coast). Ms GRACE FU HAI YIEN (Yuhua), Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts and Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. Mr GAN KIM YONG (Chua Chu Kang), Minister for Health and Government Whip. Mr GAN THIAM POH (Pasir Ris-Punggol). Mr GERALD GIAM YEAN SONG (Non-Constituency Member). Mr GOH CHOK TONG (Marine Parade). No. 14 17 FEBRUARY 2012 90 Mdm HALIMAH YACOB (Jurong), Minister of State, Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports. Mr HAWAZI DAIPI (Sembawang), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Minister for Manpower. Mr HENG CHEE HOW (Whampoa), Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister’s Office and Deputy Leader of the House. Mr HENG SWEE KEAT (Tampines), Minister for Education. Mr HRI KUMAR NAIR (Bishan-Toa Payoh).
[Show full text]
Annual Summaries 2017 Highlights PAGE CONTENTS
ATTORNEY- GENERAL’S CHAMBERS Annual Summaries 2017 Highlights PAGE CONTENTS 04 CIVIL DIVISION 12 CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION 24 FINANCIAL & TECHNOLOGY CRIME DIVISION 32 INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION 44 LEGISLATION DIVISION 54 CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION 66 CAPABILITIES DEVELOPMENT 80 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND LIBRARY 83 STRATEGIC PLANNING AND ORGANISATIONAL EXCELLENCE OFFICE 85 AGC’S TRANSFORMATION JOURNEY M A JOR CASES CIVIL ATTORNEY-GENERAL V EUGENE THURAISINGAM DIVISION A lawyer, Eugene Thuraisingam, published a poem on Facebook publicly alleging that our Judges have subordinated their judicial duty to financial The Civil Division plays a vital role in protecting and advancing the Government’s greed. The poem posed a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice in Singapore. Thuraisingam was eventually interests, facilitating the administration of justice and upholding the rule of found in contempt of court and fined $6,000. law. The Division advises the Government on wide ranging legal issues and represents the Government in court and other dispute resolution proceedings. AXY AND OTHERS V COMPTROLLER OF INCOME TAX (ATTORNEY-GENERAL, INTERVENER) PENDING GROUNDS OF DECISION AS OF 5 APRIL 2018 This was an appeal against the High Court Judge’s decision (see AXY and others v Comptroller of Income Tax [2017] SGHC 42) concerning the exchange of information between tax authorities for the enforcement of tax laws and prevention of tax evasion. The appellants challenged the decision of the Comptroller of Income Tax to provide banking information to the National Tax Service of Korea under a Singapore-Korea tax treaty and an exchange of information regime under the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed).
[Show full text]
Lawlink 2019 Contents Contents
law link FROM ACADEMIA TO POLITICS AND BACK PROFESSOR S JAYAKUMAR ‘63 CHARTING THE NEXT CHAPTER JUSTICE ANDREW PHANG ‘82 ON LANGUAGE, LAW AND CODING STEPHANIE LAW ‘14 AN EMINENT CAREER EMERITUS PROFESSOR M. SORNARAJAH AI & THE LAW ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DANIEL SENG ‘92 THE ALUMNI MAGAZINE OF THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE FACULTY OF LAW LAWLINK 2019 CONTENTS CONTENTS 02 04 10 16 22 28 Dean’s Diary Alumni Spotlight Student Features Reunions Benefactors Law School Message from the Dean Professor S Jayakumar ’63: Highlights Congratulations Class of 2019 16 Class of 1989 22 From Academia to Politics and Back 03 Michael Hwang SC Class of 1999 24 An Eminent Career 10 30 Justice Andrew Phang ’82: Emeritus Professor M. Sornarajah Delivers SLR Annual Lecture 17 Charting The Next Chapter 05 Class of 2009 25 NUS Giving The Appeal of the Moot 18 AI & the Law 11 Stephanie Law ’14: LLM Class of 2009 26 Chandran Mohan K Nair ‘76 Associate Professor Daniel Seng ’92 & Susan de Silva ‘83: On Language, Law and Coding 08 Rag & Flag 2019 20 12 Scholarship to expand Kuala Lumpur & New York 27 Key Lectures minsets about success Law Alumni Mentor Programme Law IV: Unjust Enrichment 21 14 2019 09 Book Launches Alumni Relations & Development NUS Law Eu Tong Sen Building 469G Bukit Timah Road Singapore 259776 Tel: (65) 6516 3616 Fax: (65) 6779 0979 Email: [email protected] www.nuslawlink.com www.law.nus.edu.sg/alumni Please update your particulars at: www.law.nus.edu.sg/ alumni_update_particulars.asp 1 LAWLINK 2019 ALUMNI SPOTLIGHT DEAN’S DIARY FROM ACADEMIA TO POLITICS PROFESSOR SIMON CHESTERMAN AND BACK History often makes more sense in retrospect (TRAIL).
[Show full text]
Download This Case As A
CSJ‐ 08 ‐ 0006.0 Settle or fight? Far Eastern Economic Review and Singapore In the summer of 2006, Hugo Restall—editor-in-chief of the monthly Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER)--published an article about a marginalized member of the political opposition in Singapore. The piece asserted that the Singapore government had a remarkable record of winning libel suits, which suggested a deliberate effort to neutralize opponents and subdue the press. Restall hypothesized that instances of corruption were going unreported because the incentive to investigate them was outweighed by the threat of an unwinnable libel suit. Singapore’s ruling family reacted swiftly. Lawyers for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of modern Singapore, asserted that the article amounted to an accusation against their clients of personal incompetence and corruption. In a series of letters, the Lees’ counsel demanded a printed apology, removal of the offending article from FEER’s website, and compensation for damages. The magazine maintained that Restall’s piece was not libelous; nonetheless, it offered to take mitigating action short of the three demands. But the Lees remained adamant. Then, in a move whose timing defied coincidence, the government Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts informed FEER that henceforth it would be subject to new, and onerous, regulations. These actions were not without precedent. Singapore was an authoritarian, if prosperous, country. The Lee family--which claimed that the country’s ruling precepts were rooted in Confucianism, a philosophy that vested power in an enlightened ruler—tolerated no criticism. The Lees had been in charge for decades.
[Show full text]