Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-27-2014
George Wei JC: 1. The Writ in this case was filed on 18 June 2009 and concerns claims for unauthorised use of confidential information and associated copyright infringement. The defendants denied both claims. The second defendant has also counterclaimed for defamation. The action was set down for trial from 28 to 30 August 2013, 3 to 6 September 2013 and 10 to 11 September 2013 (nine days in total). By consent, the proceedings have been bifurcated into liability followed by assessment of damages (if necessary). 2. After hearing the parties, I am dismissing both claims of the plaintiff. I am also dismissing the second defendant's counterclaim for defamation. 3. The evidence before me was voluminous, and given the nature of this case, I felt that it was pertinent to set out and discuss the evidence before the court in some detail. Given the relatively few local authorities in the law of confidentiality, it was important to set out comprehensively the fact scenario in order to better appr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-25-2014
Choo Han Teck J: 1. The plaintiff is a Chinese woman married to a German of Caucasian descent. They have a son conceived in 2006 through an assisted fertilisation procedure commonly known as In-Vitro Fertilisation or "IVF" for short. In October 2010 the plaintiff delivered a daughter (named "Baby P" in this action) also conceived through IVF. When the IVF procedure was carried out in respect of Baby P, a mistake was made and the plaintiff's egg was fertilised with the sperm of a third party male ("the Donor") instead of the sperm of the plaintiff's husband. The plaintiff sued the defendants in the tort of negligence and breach of contract. 2. The first defendant is the company that owned the second defendant, which was the medical centre in which the IVF procedure was carried out on the plaintiff. The third defendant was the embryologist who was responsible for the collection and storage of the bottle containing the plaintiff's husband's sperms. The fourth defendant was the Chief Embry...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-04-2014
Andrew Ang J (delivering the judgment of the court): 1. This is an appeal under s 81(5) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) ("the IT A") against the decision of the High Court judge ("the Judge") dismissing the appeal of the appellant Comptroller ("the Appellant") against the decision of the Income Tax Board of Review ("the Board") in Income Tax Appeal Nos 3 and 4 of 2010. The Board had allowed the appeal of the respondent insurance company ("the Respondent") against revised assessments raised on it by the Appellant seeking to tax the gains made by the Respondent on the disposal of certain shares ("the Shares") that had been held by the Respondent in its related companies [C], [D] and [E]. 2. The significance of this case lies to some degree in the fact that it is the first local case dealing with the income tax treatment of investment gains accruing to insurance companies. At its core it revolves around the single issue of whether the gains arising from the Respondent's dispo...
Tag this Judgment!