In Celestial Aviation Services Ltd v UniCredit Bank GmbH, London Branch and Kuvera Resources Pte Ltd v JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the English and Singaporean courts, respectively, entertained disputes regarding the intersection of letters of credit and sanctions. This note examines how the two core developments arising from these cases (that is, a prohibition against payment arising from sanctions laws and regulations and the use of sanctions clauses, respectively) have introduced uncertainty and unpredictability to payment in international trade. It investigates salient aspects of both cases and offers support for the appeal court judgments insofar as they promote harmony between sanctions laws and regulations on the one hand, and established principles of international trade on the other. It is suggested that both cases may serve as useful guidance for other legal systems in pursuing such harmony, particularly insofar as letters of credit are concerned.

In East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed trade mark infringement in the context of Google advertisements and online search advertising. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed Singapore’s use-centric threshold of “trade mark use” under s 27 of the Trade Marks Act 1998 (2020 Rev Ed), declining to adopt the EU’s effect-centric “functions” approach. In addition, the decision also contained obiter on whether websites may feature in the confusion analysis for trade mark infringement, appearing to take a more expansive view towards extraneous considerations in infringement cases, in contrast to the prior decision of Staywell Hospitality Group v Starwood Hotels. This comment examines the implications of this decision especially in light of Singapore’s shared TRIPS obligations, and the possibility of future development of trade mark law in the digital marketplace.

In D’Aloia, the English High Court was presented with a crypto assets fraud dispute that was highly complex and technical, but found the evidence of both expert witnesses to be unhelpful. Neither expert witness had formal qualifications in computer science, and the court found the evidence of one expert witness to be chaotic, inconsistent and contradictory, which made it difficult for the court to apply the relevant laws cogently. This case highlights the necessity of having strong, accurate and coherent expert evidence, especially in complex cryptocurrency matters. This comment aims to expound and analyse the deficiencies in the presentation and understanding of the complicated functioning of the technology of blockchains, which impacted the court’s ability to distil the correct facts, undermining its capacity to accurately apply the laws of tracing and following.

Two comparative law jurists accurately observed this character of legal development more than two decades ago. The laws of several countries of the effect of marriage on each spouse’s interest in the property of the other acquired during the course of their marriage are proving this proposition. This note records developments in Singapore and England. Recent decisions in England portend to mirror earlier development in Singapore.