News & Insights

Where a bank finances an international sale of goods, original bills of lading (“OBLs”) are amongst the documents that will be presented by a seller to the bank to obtain payment for the goods. The OBLs are held by the bank as security for the financing extended to the buyer. If the cargo is discharged by the carrier without presentation of the OBLs, the bank has a claim in misdelivery against the carrier.

One of the defences raised against a misdelivery claim is that the bank would have consented to the cargo being discharged from the carrier without presentation of the OBLs in any event. As such, it is argued, the bank is not entitled to the damages sought as the carrier’s breach of the contract of carriage did not cause the loss allegedly suffered by the bank. Such a defence was successfully established in Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV [2022] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 467, where the English High Court rejected the plaintiff bank’s misdelivery claim. The decision was affirmed on appeal.

In the recent case of The Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282, the same defence was considered by the Singapore High Court, but the carrier in that case failed to succeed in this defence. Nevertheless, the case serves as a reminder that a bank’s security over the cargo (by virtue of being holder of the OBLs) would be compromised if the carrier is able to prove that the bank would have counterfactually consented to the discharge of the cargo without presentation of the OBLs.

Click here to view the article.

The Court of Appeal ruled that assignments may be ineffective for offending public policy. Additionally, an assignment of a bare right to sue must not prejudice the administration of justice. Generally, non-assignment clauses would also prohibit the assignment of contractual and related rights.

Click here to view the article.

Shook Lin & Bok LLP is pleased to announce the admission of five new Partners, with effect from 1 January 2025.

We are delighted to announce that our firm is ranked across 11 practice areas, with 13 of our partners being recognised for their expertise in the recently published Chambers Asia-Pacific 2025 rankings. The overall ranking of the firm has improved with Employment, Investment Funds and Shipping rising a tier.

On 6 November 2024, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) published its response to feedback received on its consultation paper proposing a new class exemption for single family offices (“SFOs”) from the requirement to be licensed for fund management under the Securities and Futures Act 2001 (“SFA”).

This note summarises the key points from the consultation response.

Click here to view the article..

On 25 October 2024, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) published the Circular on Anti-scam measures by Major Payment Institutions Providing Personal Payment Accounts that contain E-money (the “Circular”). The Circular sets out MAS’ supervisory expectations of Major Payment Institutions (“MPIs”) that provide personal payment accounts containing e-money. This Client Update provides a summary of the key contents of the circular.

Click here to view the article.

For the fifth consecutive year, we are pleased to be recognised as one of The Straits Times’ Singapore’s Best Law Firms 2025.

In Envy Asset Management v. CH Biovest Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 46 (“Biovest”), the General Division of the Singapore High Court held for the first time that the profits of a “net winner” of a Ponzi scheme ought to be repaid to the insolvent company through which the Ponzi scheme was perpetrated. In particular, the Court held that such profits were recoverable pursuant to the statutory clawback provision under Singapore’s insolvency regime – namely, Section 224, Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (“IRDA") and Section 73B, Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1886 (“CLPA”).

Judgment for Biovest was delivered in February 2024. The Court of Appeal has since dismissed an appeal against the High Court’s decision on 16 October 2024. Our Partners David Chan, Daryl Fong, Lin Ruizi, Senior Associate Sarah Chew and Associates Louis Lai, Tan Wei Sze and Mo Fei successfully acted for the Liquidators and EAM in this matter.

Biovest is the latest in a spate of decisions addressing the legal consequences of a Ponzi scheme. The decision stands in contrast to recent decisions dismissing claims arising from such schemes: e.g. Chan Pik Suk v. Wan Hoe Keet and others [2024] SGHC(A) 23 and Perry, Tamar v. Esculier, Bonnet Servane Michele Thais [2023] SGCA(I) 2.

Click here to view the article.

Our Litigation Partner, Joseph Tay has successfully acted for Huber’s Butchery in the landmark case of Huber’s Pte Ltd v. Hu Lee Impex Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 230. In a first-reported decision of its kind, the Singapore High Court exercised its powers under Section 97A, Land Titles Act, to allow access to a neighbour’s property so that demolition and construction works on the adjoining property could be completed.

A copy of the judgment may be accessed here.