新加坡法律饼干店
#01-LAW
est. 2023 · baked daily, no holidays
FRESH BATCH · 18:04 SGT
SELF SERVICE · 自助服务
16 cookies today

baked fresh
this morning

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

★ THE DAILY BAKE ★

DATEFRI 17 JUL 2026
OVEN OPENED18:04 SGT

○ NEWS7
⬡ JUDGMENTS9
▲ PINEAPPLE TARTS2
FRESH11
COOLING RACK3

BUSIEST OVENCONTRACT LAW ×4
NEW INGREDIENT"IRIS KOH"

thank you — come again tomorrow

FRESHLY LOGGED

straight from the oven, tray by tray

DISPLAY CASE · SCROLL →
Court of Appeal holds in [2026] SGCA 34 that damages claims under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 are subject to s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1959 but limitation is postponed under s 29(1)(c) until the claimant could with reasonable diligence discover the misrepresentation. Contract Law · JUDICIARY PINEAPPLE TART · ACT ON
Court of Appeal holds in [2026] SGCA 34 that rescission for innocent misrepresentation is equitable relief in equity's exclusive jurisdiction and not subject to any limitation period under the Limitation Act 1959. Contract Law · JUDICIARY PINEAPPLE TART · ACT ON
Singapore to undergo IAEA review for nuclear energy deployment assessment Energy Law · SLW $0.60 · FRESH
Court of Appeal rejects auditor's liability for a client's trading losses based on foreseeability. Negligence and Malpractice Law · SLW $0.60 · FRESH
Auditor's duty of care does not extend to protecting creditors' interests during insolvency. Corporate Insolvency Law · SLW $0.60 · FRESH
Conveyancing lawyer charged with forgery regarding KYC documentation in $3 billion money laundering case. Criminal Law · SLW $0.60 · FRESH
District Court holds in [2026] SGDC 230 that corporate claimants must prove a jurisdiction-specific reputation to recover libel damages, and rejects social media follower counts as sufficient evidence. Defamation Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
Court of Appeal holds in [2026] SGCA 34 that claimants may elect to rely on s 6(1)(a) read with s 29(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1959 rather than s 24A(3) for misrepresentation claims if more favourable. Contract Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 150 that creditors who vote in favour of a scheme of arrangement face a high bar to secure alterations at the sanction stage, with exceptional circumstances required. Corporate Insolvency Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 150 that alterations to a scheme of arrangement must remain within the reasonable contemplation of stakeholders at the time of voting. Corporate Insolvency Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
District Court holds in [2026] SGDC 232 that a job description sent by email marked 'for reference' was not incorporated into the employment contract. Employment Contracts Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
District Court holds in [2026] SGDC 232 that an employee's implied duty of obedience to lawful orders is codified by Employee Handbook clause prohibiting 'wilful insubordination'. Employment Contracts Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
District Court applies CIMB Bank Bhd v World Fuel Services in [2026] SGDC 232 to establish document falsification through objective impossibility and motive analysis. Fraud and Economic Torts Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
Justice Sushil Nair appointed as the 5th Chief Justice of Singapore JUDICIARY $0.30 · TRACKING

The chips on each cookie are its FOLIO concepts — more chips, more doctrine. Pineapple tarts are reserved for the signals you act on. 3 more bakes are on the cooling rack below.

Today's Specials

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

Court of Appeal holds in [2026] SGCA 34 that damages claims under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 are subject to s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1959 but limitation is postponed under s 29(1)(c) until the claimant could with reasonable diligence discover the misrepresentation.

The SGCA ruled that s 2(1) MA claims constitute statutory torts subject to a six-year limitation under s 6(1)(a) LA, but crucially held that such claims also qualify as actions for 'relief from the consequences of a mistake' under s 29(1)(c) LA, which postpones the limitation period. The court reasoned that misrepresentation is a species of mistake because it involves an erroneous belief induced by another's representation.

Why it mattersThis creates a more claimant-friendly limitation framework for misrepresentation damages by allowing postponement until discoverability rather than running from the date of the tort, significantly extending the potential window for claims.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗
02⬡ JUDGMENT

Court of Appeal holds in [2026] SGCA 34 that rescission for innocent misrepresentation is equitable relief in equity's exclusive jurisdiction and not subject to any limitation period under the Limitation Act 1959.

The SGCA held that rescission based on innocent misrepresentation falls within equity's exclusive jurisdiction, not its concurrent jurisdiction, and therefore lies outside s 6(7) LA. Since the common law provides no remedy for innocent misrepresentation, such claims are exclusively equitable and governed only by laches, not statutory limitation.

Why it mattersPractitioners can advise clients that rescission for innocent misrepresentation remains viable regardless of statutory limitation periods, provided laches does not bar the claim.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗