Search

Unconscionability is one of the three exceptions injuncting calls upon unconditional undertakings to pay on demand given under construction contracts. This article examines the Australian approach to the unconscionability exception, empirically by extracting four indicia from decisions granting or rejecting injunction applications, and comparatively by juxtaposing Australia's eclectic position with Singapore courts' vigorous use of the exception and English market's reservation about the instrument itself. In doing so, this article proposes to demonstrate that Australia's self-restrained approach to the unconscionability exception prescribes a normative standard of "conduct", not merely proscribing a matrix of unfair, unreasonable or unjust "result". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The courts generally resort to website blocking injunctions to protect the rights of the content creators from digital piracy. However, merely disabling access to infringing websites does not necessarily ensure protection of copyright as there are dynamic ways of accessing an online location. The courts, therefore, have sought to develop new mechanisms to counter the menace of digital piracy. Recently, the Delhi High Court granted India's first dynamic injunction against Internet intermediaries to combat digital piracy in cinematographic works. A dynamic injunction would allow a plaintiff to extend the main injunction order against mirror websites providing access to the flagrantly infringing online locations that were the subject of the main injunction. This note primarily aims to analyse the concept of dynamic injunctions. The author examines and compares the Indian position to that in Singapore to highlight the different trends that have emerged with respect to dynamic injunction. The principal conclusion is that, despite the near similarities of the dynamic injunctions issued by the courts in the two countries, the dynamic injunction issued by the Indian court seeks to effectively protect the rights of the website operators as it affords constant judicial supervision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ability of parties contractually to limit their right to seek injunctive relief has not often been judicially discussed. An interesting case from Singapore now appears to suggest that this is much more than a theoretical possibility. Some arguments can, however, be made to demonstrate that this is perhaps not the vista of opportunity over which some contract draughtsmen might rejoice, and care should be taken to ascertain the boundaries of the law, as explained in this note. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the first annual survey of conflict of laws cases in this inaugural issue of Singapore Year Book of International Law. Seven cases will be considered in this year's survey. Before looking at these cases, it is useful to make two preliminary comments. First, generally, only cases in from the High Court and Court of Appeal will be considered. In exceptional situations, cases from the Subordinate Courts will be considered. Secondly, conflict of laws cases often relate to other areas of law. In these situations, this survey will only consider those parts of the case that relate to conflict of laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses construction contracts, the unconscionability legal doctrine, and the Singapore Court of Appeal's ruling in the 2012 case BS Mount Sophia Pte Ltd. v. Join-Aim Pte Ltd. which deals with the legal aspects of performance bonds. It states that a dispute broke out between the parties in regards to the time for completion of construction work under a contract. The application of the unconscionability doctrine to injunctions is also analyzed.

The article discusses the court case White v. Green wherein the judge determined that there was no jurisdiction to grant an injunction against the grandfather of a child who was in Singapore unless the evidence proved that the grandfather can influence the court's parenting order. The judge also declined to order the Case Guardian to give an undertaking as to damages as the father had unclean hands. The judge considered that the child's welfare should be prioritised over any financial factors.