新加坡法律饼干店
#01-LAW
est. 2023 · baked daily, no holidays
THE WEEKLY BAKE · W40
28 SEP – 4 OCT 2026
56 cookies this week

the week's batch
cooled & sorted

Seven days of Singapore legal signal, with the patterns that rose out of it.

★ THE WEEKLY BAKE ★

WEEKW40 · 2026
DATES28 SEP – 4 OCT 2026
DAYS BAKED7/7

○ NEWS28
⬡ JUDGMENTS28
▲ PINEAPPLE TARTS3
FRESH44
COOLING RACK9

BUSIEST OVENCRIMINAL LAW ×14
NEW INGREDIENT"INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA PROPRIÉTÉ INDUSTRIELLE"

thank you — fresh batch every week

WEEK IN REVIEW

a week's worth, tray by tray

This Week's Specials

the pineapple tarts — the signals worth acting on
01MON · ○ NEWS

Online Safety Commission commences operations under the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act.

The Online Safety Commission (OSC) has begun operations to enforce the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act (OSRAA). The framework provides a formal administrative mechanism for victims of doxxing and online harassment to seek relief and hold digital platforms accountable.

Why it mattersLawyers must now advise clients on using the OSC as a primary regulatory channel for seeking relief from digital harms rather than relying solely on traditional litigation.

02SAT · ⬡ JUDGMENT

High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 202 that SGX-ST Mainboard Rule 877(10) requires non-restricted individuals' excess rights applications to be fully satisfied before restricted individuals receive any excess shares.

The court rejected UOB's "Success Rate" methodology and ruled that the "clear and obvious" meaning of r 877(10) mandates absolute priority for non-restricted individuals in excess rights allotments. Only a proposal giving 100% success rate to non-restricted individuals before any restricted individual allotment was compliant.

Why it mattersRights issue managers and listed issuers must ensure excess rights allotment structures give complete priority to non-restricted applicants, not merely proportional or partial priority.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗
03SUN · ⬡ JUDGMENT

High Court holds in Great Eastern Financial Advisers Private Limited v Lim Siang Heng [2026] SGHC 203 that a sum remains 'liquidated' under s 311(1)(b) of the IRDA even where quantification requires extrinsic facts and non-arithmetical processes.

The court rejected the narrow view that a liquidated sum must be ascertainable by mere arithmetic from the contract itself. Instead, the true test is whether the sum can be ascertained by a complete process of quantification without judicial assessment, regardless of whether the formula or underlying facts are extrinsic to the agreement. This overturned the assistant registrar's approach that had set aside a statutory demand for clawed-back commissions.

Why it mattersPractitioners can now issue statutory demands for debts requiring factual investigation beyond the contract's four corners, provided the quantification process is complete and does not need judicial evaluation.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗