新加坡法律饼干店
#01-LAW
est. 2023 · baked daily, no holidays
FRESH BATCH · 06:01 SGT
SELF SERVICE · 自助服务
29 cookies that day

baked fresh
that morning

Singapore's daily legal output, reduced to the signals worth biting into.

★ THE DAILY BAKE ★

DATETHU 16 JUL 2026
OVEN OPENED06:01 SGT

○ NEWS6
⬡ JUDGMENTS23
▲ PINEAPPLE TARTS1
FRESH27
COOLING RACK1

BUSIEST OVENPUBLIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ×13
NEW INGREDIENT"DEFAMATORY MEANING"

thank you — come again tomorrow

FRESHLY LOGGED

straight from the oven, tray by tray

DISPLAY CASE · SCROLL →
High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 147 that the Reynolds privilege is not part of Singapore's common law. Defamation Law · JUDICIARY PINEAPPLE TART · ACT ON
High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 147 that defendants would have failed the responsible journalism test even if the Reynolds privilege were available. Defamation Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 147 that internal emails revealing improper motive and paywall manipulation justified aggravated damages for malice. Defamation Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court awards $230,000 per claimant in [2026] SGHC 147 for defamation implying money laundering by ministers. Defamation Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 148 that Appendix G Costs Guidelines are not a tariff or ceiling and departure must be justified by inherent complexity or inadequacy of the Guidelines. Public and Administrative Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court in [2026] SGHC 148 fixes pre-trial costs at $85,000 for tort action, exceeding $25,000–$70,000 Appendix G range due to documentary volume and legal complexity. Public and Administrative Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court in [2026] SGHC 148 holds that trial costs already compensated by pre-trial departure cannot justify further increase above Appendix G maximum. Public and Administrative Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court in [2026] SGHC 148 fixes post-trial costs at $50,000, departing $20,000 above Appendix G range due to extensive submissions and procedural delay. Public and Administrative Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court in [2026] SGHC 148 rules legal team size and claimant's interest in ventilating grievances irrelevant to costs quantum under indemnity principle. Public and Administrative Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court in [2026] SGHC 148 clarifies Type I orders under O 21 r 4 operate within indemnity principle and do not permit depriving successful party of reasonably incurred costs. Public and Administrative Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
Magistrate's Court in [2026] SGMC 88 applies Australian authorities to hold that an MCST's duty to maintain common property includes preventative monitoring and control of known subterranean termite risks. Real Property Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
Magistrate's Court in [2026] SGMC 88 rejects improperly tendered expert witness and cautions counsel against shaping expert evidence content. Real Property Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
SGHC(I) holds in DWJ v DWK [2026] SGHC(I) 10 that Order 9 rule 12(1) of the ROC 2021, not the SICC Rules 2021, governs security for costs applications in proceedings transferred from the General Division to the SICC absent specific direction. Public and Administrative Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
SGHC(I) in DWJ v DWK [2026] SGHC(I) 10 orders $100,000 security for costs against Hong Kong claimant resisting SIAC award enforcement, finding resistance to foreign enforcement supports security order. Public and Administrative Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH

The chips on each cookie are its FOLIO concepts — more chips, more doctrine. Pineapple tarts are reserved for the signals you act on. 1 more bake is on the cooling rack below.

Today's Specials

the pineapple tarts — they change what you do on Monday
01⬡ JUDGMENT

High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 147 that the Reynolds privilege is not part of Singapore's common law.

The defendants sought to rely on the Reynolds privilege as a defence to defamation. The court held that this privilege, which originated from the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK Human Rights Act 1998, does not form part of Singapore's legal framework, affirming the position established in Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien Loong [2010] 1 SLR 52.

Why it mattersThis reaffirms that media defendants in Singapore cannot invoke the Reynolds responsible journalism defence, leaving them without this shield against defamation claims.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗