singapore law gazette (august 2013)

www.lawgazette.com.sgR

R

An Official Publication of The Law Society of Singapore | August 2013

What are t

hey saying

ONLINE?

And who is

responsible

?

Continued on page 4

Based on Justice and EqualitySingaporeans just celebrated the 48th birthday of our nation on 9 August 2013. The celebration culminated in a stylish parade/concert at Marina Bay complete with precision military drills, moving renditions of our National songs, and dazzling laser and fireworks displays. One never tires of them. For me, the stand out feature of this years parade came right at the end of the formal programme the singing of the National Anthem. This years version was slow, and soulful. I have heard certainly faster and more joyful versions. But never one quite like this.

The Majulah Singapura was composed by Zubir Said in 1958 and adopted in 1965 as Singapores National Anthem. It means Onward Singapore and calls on the people of Singapore to march together towards happiness in a new spirit of unity. If the National Anthem expresses the optimism of a young nation as she takes her place in the family of independent sovereign states, the National Pledge encapsulates the ideals for forging a united Singapore. If the Anthem represents the spirit of the endeavour, the Pledge represents the soul of the undertaking. And deep in the core of the Pledge sit the words to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality.

These words are a timely reminder to all Singaporeans that the undertaking that binds us all is not just to build a prosperous and successful nation, but one that is also equal and just. I am humbled by the realisation that the Pledge, which is still recited hundreds (if not thousands) of times everyday, emphasises two qualities which while every man, woman or child in Singapore must observe, are the qualities which lawyers as practitioners of the law and as officers of the Court are best placed to advance. More so than any other professional group, members of the legal profession have a special role carved out within the Pledge to project and protect the ideals for Singapore as a society based on justice and equality.

This is a special calling for all members of the profession, to be channels through which the ideals of justice and equality can be accessed by the community. It bears highlighting that this calling was emphasised by The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon in his speech at the launch of Law Week 2013 which encouraged members to get involved in pro bono activities to better serve the community and to bring legal services closer to the community through pro bono outreach.1 It recognises the reality that

even in a successful, prosperous and progressive society like Singapore, legal rights and legal processes remain unknown to and out of reach of many Singaporeans. The qualities of justice and equality require that these rights and processes be accessible by all Singaporeans. Pro bono remains our best chance to achieve this and given that it is an endeavour that finds its source at the very heart and soul of our legal practice, it is also our best hope for a long and sustainable outreach to the community.

There are two achievements of a couple of lawyers I would like to share. The first is a video titled Prisoners in Paradise produced by one of my Council members, which is recognised by the Chief Justice as a superb piece of work.2 Josephus Tan, who produced the video, may be one of my younger Council colleagues but he is already a veteran in pro bono work. The video presents the desperate plight of four such prisoners, trapped in the grip of poverty, misfortune and the schemes of others. However, it also highlights the fact that pro bono service can vastly mitigate, even cancel, the crushing blow of many personal tragedies. I encourage members to view this video, available at www.probono.lawsociety.org.sg. It will take only about eight minutes of your time but the message of the urgency for and effectiveness of pro bono work the video conveys may well resonate within your heart and refresh your approach to practice for a much longer time.

This video has had quite an impact on me. I was particularly moved by the fact that one young lady featured in the video was only about 16 or 17 (about the age of my daughter) when she got into trouble with the law. One evening, I gathered my wife and my daughter to watch this video together. None of us spoke a word throughout despite the best attempts at distraction by our puppy. At the end of the video, I turned to my daughter and told her, with considerable pride, that about 1,000 lawyers are doing what she just saw, free of charge, for the less fortunate. My daughter broke into a wide grin and gave me an approving nod and hug. It was for me, a moment to savour!

The second achievement brings us back to the rendition of the National Anthem at this years parade.

Forty-eight years on, the optimism expressed by the Anthem has not been misplaced. Singapores economic success story remains the envy of many and the dream of

Presidents Message

Singapore Law Gazette August 2013

Based on Justice and Equality 01

Presidents Message

Diary and Upcoming Events 06Council and Committee Updates 08Law Society Welcomes Newly Admitted Advocates and Solicitors at Mass Call 2013 09

News

Liability for Internet Publication of Defamatory Comments 16The Case for the Institutional Arbitral Ombudsman 20Old Fashioned Breach of Confidence: The Singapore Approach to Privacy Law 26

Features

The Young Lawyer Amicus Agony 34Spotlight Representing with a Heart 37

Columns

Alter Ego The Life of DINKS 40Travel Northern Spain 42

Lifestyle

Notices Disciplinary Tribunal Reports 47Professional Moves 49Information on Wills 51

53 Appointments

Contents

The Singapore Law Gazette

An Official Publication of The Law Society of Singapore

The Law Society of Singapore39 South Bridge Road, Singapore 058673Tel: (65) 6538 2500Fax: (65) 6533 5700Website: http://www.lawsociety.org.sgE-mail: [email protected]

The Council of The Law Society of SingaporePresident Mr Lok Vi Ming, SCVice Presidents Mr Leo Cheng Suan Mr Thio Shen Yi, SCTreasurer Mr Kelvin Wong

Mr Wong Meng Meng, SC, Mr Young Chee Foong, Mr Lim Seng Siew, Ms Kuah Boon Theng, Ms Rachel Eng, Mr Adrian Tan, Mr Gregory Vijayendran, Ms Lisa Sam, Mr Michael S

Chia, Mr Moiz Sithawalla, Mr Anand Nalachandran, Mr Sean La Brooy, Mr Lee Terk Yang, Mr See Chern Yang, Ms Hazel Tang, Mr Josephus Tan, Ms Simran Kaur, Mr Kenneth See

Editorial BoardMr Gregory Vijayendran, Ms Malathi Das, Mr Prakash Pillai, Ms Celeste Ang, Mr Joel Teo, Mr Chua Sui Tong, Ms Vanessa Lim, Ms Lye Huixian, Mr M Lukshumayeh, Mr Marcus Yip, Mr Mohan Gopalan, Mr Rajan Chettiar, Ms Simran Kaur, Ms Supreeta Suman, Mr Vincent Leow, Mr Yeo Chuan Tat, Mr Yeoh Lian Chuan

The Law Society SecretariatChief Executive Officer Ms Tan Su-YinBusiness Development & Marketing Ms Adeline TanCommunications & Membership Interests Mr Shawn TohCompliance Mr Kenneth GohConduct Ms Ambika Rajendram, Mr K GopalanContinuing Professional Development Ms Jean WongFinance Ms Jasmine Liew, Mr Clifford HangInformation Technology Mr Michael HoPro Bono Services Mr Tanguy Lim, Ms Shahrany Hassan, Ms Vimala Chandrarajan, Ms Nadine YapPublications Ms Sharmaine LauRepresentation & Law Reform Ms Michelle Woodworth Cordeiro, Ms Jasmine Foong

Publishing ReedElsevier(Singapore)PteLtd tradingasLexisNexisAssociate Director, Contract Publishing Ivan YapEditor ChandranieCover Design Ryan YeeDesigner Ryan YeeWeb Administrator Jessica WangAdvertising Account Manager Anthony Eng For Advertising EnquiriesTel: (65) 6349 0172Email: [email protected] Markono Print Media Pte Ltd

LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd, is a leading provider of legal and professional information in Asia, with offices in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, India, England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. The complete range of works published by LexisNexis include law reports, legal indexes, major works, looseleaf serivces, textbooks, electronice products and other reference works for Asia.

LexisNexis3 Killiney Road, # 08-08, Winsland House 1, Singapore 239519Tel: (65) 6733 1380Fax: (65) 6733 1719http://www.lawgazette.com.sgISSN 1019-942X

The Singapore Law Gazette is the official publication of the Law Society of singapore. Copyright in all material published in journal is retained by the Law Society. no part of this journal may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including recording and photocopying without the written permission of the copyright holder, application for which should be addressed to the law society. Written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature. the journal does not accept liability for any views, opinions, or advice given in the journal. Further, the contents of the journal do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the publisher, the Law Society or members of the Law Society and no liability is accepted or members of the Law Society and no liability is accepted in relation thereto. Advertisements appearing within this publication should not be taken to imply any direct support for, or sympathy with the views and aims of the publisher or the Law Society.

Circulation 5,000

Subscription Fee S$228.00 (inclusive of GST) for 12 issues

The Law Societys Mission StatementTo serve our members and the communitty by sustaining a competent and independent Bar which upholds the rule of law and ensures access to justice.


Recruit Legal391A Orchard Road

#11-03 Ngee Ann City Tower ASingapore 238873

Legal In-HouseL0613-2127-Head Legal-Asset Management->15 PQE My client, a leading player in the asset management industry and with a sizeable AUM is currently looking for a Head of Legal to lead the legal team in the Singapore office. Candidates with funds, asset management experience are preferred. Interested candidates may contact Linus for a confidential discussion.L0713-2153 - APAC Legal Counsel Engineering >10PQE Our client, a global leader in the design, development and manufacture of products and services for the world's process and industrial markets, is searching for an APAC Legal Counsel. There is an opportunity to be based in the China office. You should have over 10 years of experience in general corporate commercial matters and be effectively bilingual. Contact Adeline.L0713-2150-Legal Counsel - Shipping - >10PQE An established shipping company is seeking lawyers with a shipping and finance background. Attractive remuneration. Senior level lawyers qualified in the Commonwealth are welcomed to apply. Contact HelmiL0813-2152 - Legal Director - Financial Services - > 8 PQE A leading player within the financial sector and strong global presence is in search of a senior lawyer with good business acumen. Candidates with prior experiences with MNCs will be considered favorably. Attractive remuneration offered. Interested candidates may contact Claire for a confidential discussion.L0613-2135-Senior Legal Counsel-Corp Comm- 8-10 PQE A global independent safety science company is looking to hire a senior legal counsel to handle their general corporate commercial matters. Exciting opportunity with APAC scope. Frequent travelling required. Contact Eileen if interested.L0713-2149-Legal Counsel - Banking - 5-8PQE A global bank is seeking lawyers with a finance and wealth management background. Mid level lawyers qualified in the Commonwealth are welcomed to apply. Contact HelmiL0813-2151 - Legal Counsel - Financial Sector 5-7 PQE A prominent leader within the financial industry is seeking a competent lawyer to join their dynamic team. Candidates with good corporate commercial background and prior experience with MNCs will be essential. Interested candidates may contact Claire for a confidential discussion.L0713-2151-Legal Counsel -IT-5PQE Our client, a leader in Information Communications Technologies solutions provider in the Asia Pacific region, is searching for a high calibre Legal Counsel. A sole contributor role, you will be a highly independent and hands on individual with a minimum of 5 years of experience, both in practice and as an in-house counsel. Contact Adeline.L0613-2139-Legal Counsel- Corp Comm IT IP -> 5 PQE A technological security firm which manufactures devices and software is looking for an in house counsel to join their current team of lawyers. Contact Benedict.L0513-2115-Legal Counsel - IT MNC >5 PQE My client, one of the worlds most innovative organizations in the Technology industry, is hiring a legal counsel for the APAC HQ in the Singapore Office. Candidates with intellectual property and general corporate commercials experience are preferred. Interested candidates please contact Linus.

Please visit www.recruit-legal.com for a full list of our positionsAlternatively, contact us at (65) 6535 8255 or 391A Orchard Road, #11-03 Ngee Ann City Tower A, Singapore 238873

Interested? Please contact Claire at [email protected], Helmi at [email protected],Linus at [email protected], Benedict at [email protected], Eileen at [email protected],

Yasmeen at [email protected], or Adeline at [email protected] or (65) 6535 8255 for more information

L0813-2153 -Legal Counsel - Infrastructure - > 4 PQE Our client, a leading Asian engineering company is seeking a bright, dynamic Legal Counsel to join its expanding operations in Asia. Candidates who are qualified to advise Singapore law or UK law are preferred. Candidates with litigation experience will be considered favorably. Contact Claire.L0713-2144-Legal Counsel- Litigation and Regulatory >4-8 PQE My client, a regulatory body is expanding its legal team. Litigators with regulatory experience are welcome to apply. This is a high visibility role. Interested candidates please contact Linus.L0713-2143-Legal Counsel-Aerospace-4-6PQE My client, a leading aerospace and engineering organisation is expanding the legal department. There will be training and good scope of work to M&A and general commercial matters. Candidates from any discipline are welcome to apply. Interested candidates please contact Linus.L0713-2146-Legal Counsel - FMCG - 4PQE An expanding organization with more than fifteen years of history is looking for a suitable legal counsel to be based in their Singapore office. Candidates with corporate commercial background in an interest in FMCG industry may apply. Contact Benedict.L0613-2136-Legal Counsel - Corp Comm IP - 4PQE An organization in the media industry which produces a variety of media related products is looking for a legal counsel. The potential candidate would have to have prior experience in corporate commercial and intellectual property experience. Contact Benedict.L0713-2152-Legal Counsel-IT>3PQE Our client, a globally recognized leader in Information Technology is seeking a Legal Counsel to join their team. As part of a dynamic and talented team, you should have be a highly commercial and hands on individual. You are called to the Singapore Bar with at least 3 years of relevant experience. Contact Adeline.L0813-2154 -Legal Counsel - IT solutions - 3-8 PQE Our client, a leading provider of IT solutions is seeking a counsel to provide legal support within the region. Candidate will be expected to draft and review commercial and financing legal documents in compliance with laws, regulations and internal policies. Good knowledge in the areas of law of banking and financing would be highly advantageous. Ability to communicate in Mandarin is preferred. Contact Claire.L0613-2130-Lawyer- Construction Lawyer-3-5PQE A construction firm that engages in the construction of residential and commercial property is looking for a legal counsel to come on board. Contact Benedict.L0713-2145-Legal Counsel- Energy trade sector >2-6 PQE My client, a leading player in the energy and commodities trading arena is expanding the legal department.. This is an excellent opportunity for a first inhouse move with great exposure to commercial issues and regional legal matters. Candidates from any discipline are welcome to apply. Interested candidates please contact Linus.L0713-2154-Legal Counsel - IT-2PQE Our client, a trusted partner to governments worldwide by delivering world-first eGovernment solutions, is seeking a Legal Counsel to join their team. You should have over 2 years of experience and be qualified in any commonwealth jurisdiction. Contact Adeline.

Continued from page 1most. And if property and COE prices are anything to go by, we are in the midst of yet another gravity defying growth phase. So I was intrigued that the organisers did not decide on a version that was more upbeat and more celebratory. However, something unique happened the moment that first note was sung. Everyone watching the telecast of the parade at my home stopped talking. The chosen version of the Anthem captivated my heart more than any previous version I had heard or sung. I believe it is because it was sung from the heart of the singer and it was a message to the hearts of the listeners.

Like the video which Josephus Tan made, this was a message that reminded us that Singaporeans are bound to a common destiny. And like Josephus who made the video, Ms Rani Singam who sang the Anthem, also studied and practised law. Both, with links to the law, have made inspirational contributions to the task of nation building. May we all, like them, make our own contributions as lawyers

to nation building; and it doesnt really matter whether it is on a stage to captivate peoples hearts on a national scale or whether it is just tending quietly to the needs of the weakest among us. I am sure it will encourage and inspire you to know that every time your grandchildren, children or nephews or nieces sing the Anthem or recite the Pledge, they celebrate and affirm the fact that the work you do pro bono, as advocate and solicitor, adds to the greater task of building a nation based on justice and equality. This alone would surely be tonic for any soul.

Lok Vi Ming, Senior Counsel President The Law Society of Singapore

Notes

1 Speech of The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon at the launch of Law Week 2013 at para 9(a) and (d).

2 Ibid, at para 13.

Presidents Message


Advertise in the L

aw Gazettes

all ne

w directory sectio

n under

Professional Servi

ces

Law Society members are en

titled to a 30% discount for a

12 months contract

Your Preferred Partner in Fact-FindingOur four fortes are: Commercial Investigation Intellectual Property Investigation Matrimonial & Family-Related Investigation General Investigation & Litigation Support Services

We set unyielding standards in these qualities: Confidence in every project, no matter how complex or simple, big or small Take ownership and exercise excellent Discretion in the best interests of our

partners and clients Professional management of facts, information and evidence with utmost Integrity Bold but cautious, brave but not reckless, passionate along with Courage and

commitment in fact-finding

Member of ASIS International Council of International Investigators (CII) World Association of Detectives (WAD) World Association of Professional Investigators (WAPI)

Security Association Singapore (SAS) Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE)

CDIC CONSULTANTS LLP164 Bukit Merah Central #04-3645 Singapore 150164.

Tel: +65 6377 2723 Fax: +65 6377 2726 Email: [email protected] www.cdic.com.sg

Professional Services

2 July 2013 Seminar on Selected Issues in Probate AdministrationOrganised by the Probate Practice Committee of the Law Society of Singapore and the Subordinate Courts3.00pm-5.30pmSubordinate Court Auditorium

5 July 2013Mandatory Ethics Programme (for Newly-Qualified Lawyers)Organised by the Continuing Professional Development Department8.30am-10.30amSupreme Court Auditorium

17 July 2013Personal Data Protection SeminarOrganised by the Intellectual Property Practice Committee2.00pm-5.30pmNTUC Business Centre

19 July 2013Seminar on Leveraging Email Technology The Hard & Soft Skills of EmailsJointly organised by the Information Technology and Small Firms Committees 5.00pm-6.30pmProfessor Brawn @ Boat Quay

25 July 2013Doing Deals! Seminar Series How is Acquisition Target Valued?Organised by the Law Society of Singapore and RSM Chio Lim2.30pm-5.30pmNTUC Business Centre

27 July 2013Mass Call 2013Hosted by the Young Lawyers Committee9am-1pmNUS University Cultural Centre

Diary

Upcoming Events4 September 2013Seminar on the Litigator and the Media

13 September 20134th Biennial Lecture

September-October 2013Paralegal Course (10th Run)

27-30 October 201326th LAWASIA Conference 2013

15 November 2013Annual Dinner & Dance

23 November 2013Piala Pala Annual Bowling Tournament

News


Diary and Upcoming Events

We Will Lead You To Your Goals

Senior Counsel (10+pqe) Singapore

A fortune 500 company is seeking a senior lawyer to join their well-established legal tem in Asia Pacific. The incumbent will be looking into investigations, anti-corruption and compliance matters. One should have a strong background in litigation with an intimate working knowledge of the rules and regulations in the region and US. (Ref: SLG 3004)

Legal Counsel (4-8pqe) Thailand

Our client, a global conglomerate is seeking a lawyer with good expertise in Thai law and the region. You should have experience in EPC contracts, mergers & acquisitions and general corporate/commercial law. One would ideally be dually qualified and proficiency in Thai is advantageous. Excellent English is required and you must be able to communicate with all levels within the organization. The role will be based in Thailand. (Ref: SLG3003)

Partners Singapore

US international law firm is seeking partners with strong connections and business ties in the region to join their expanding practice. You will bring with you a good portable book of business with the ability to fit in seamlessly within the firm. Partners should ideally be dual qualified and be an expert in their area of practice. (Ref: SLG3005)

Partners Singapore

Renowned UK law firm with a well established presence in Asia would like to invite partners with expertise in international maritime/international trade/ship finance to join them. This firm offers an excellent environment for teams to direct and open markets. (Ref: SLG3006)

For further details or a confidential discussion, please contact:Pearline Teo +65 6574 4081 [email protected]

AshtonMarc Full page.indd 1 8/12/13 5:07 PM

Mass Call 2013

The Law Society, together with the Young Lawyers Committee, welcomed 411 newly admitted advocates and solicitors at the Mass Call on 27 July 2013. The Society hosted a tea reception for the new lawyers and their families, and also gave away goodie bags containing a specially commissioned souvenir. Read more about the event on pages 9-15.

Councils Luncheon with Members

Council held its third luncheon of the year with members on 13 August 2013 at the Subordinate Courts Bar room. The luncheon is part of an initiative by the Council to hold bi-monthly lunches with members to keep them updated on the latest news as well as to obtain feedback.

Dinner in Honour of the Former Chief Justice

On 12 July 2013, the Criminal Practice Committee 2013 organised a thank you dinner for former Chief Justice

Chan Sek Keong at the Novotel Singapore Hotel. About 140 members from the Criminal Bar attended the event.

Visit by Delegates of the Judicial Governance Programme

The Law Society hosted the delegates attending the Judicial Governance Programme organised by the Subordinate Courts and Civil Service College to a tea reception at the Society on 11 July 2013. The delegation was briefed on the functions of the Law Society as well as pro bono schemes and initiatives.

Visit by Students of the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) Litigation Internship Programme

The Law Society hosted a luncheon for the students of the SAL Litigation Internship Programme on 9 July 2013. The luncheon was attended by Council members.

Council and Committee Updates

PART BSPRINTING

ASSESSMENT

Ooohhhh...this? Its part of the new Trainee Syllabus. With rising ERP costs, its unlikely were going to be able to take cabs to Court very soon...

News


Council and Committee Bulletin

Law Society Welcomes Newly Admitted Advocates and Solicitors at Mass Call 2013

The Law Society welcomed 411 newly admitted advocates and solicitors and their family members with a tea reception at the Mass Call on 27 July 2013 at the NUS University Cultural Centre. The newly minted lawyers received a goodie bag containing information on the Societys practice and support schemes, a copy of the latest issue of the Law Gazette plus supplement, a specially commissioned souvenir, as well as a photo voucher for the Law Society Photo Booth.

President Mr Lok Vi Ming, SC made a speech at the Mass Call ceremony which was published in the July issue of the Law Gazette. The Publications Committee also put together

a special supplement titled Start as You Mean to Go On where several young lawyers shared tips on how to survive practice and senior lawyers also gave their take on gaining a foothold in the profession.

The list of names of the newly admitted advocates and solicitors is posted on the Societys website www.lawsociety.org.sg (under For Members > Admission of Advocates and Solicitors).

The Law Society warmly congratulates all the newly admitted advocates and solicitors.

News


Mass Call

Second, make time to talk to each member separately. Im guilty of overlooking this during a busy week, but it is so critical to find time to listen to the needs of each member of the team.

Third, lead by example in all things, something I picked up in the military. There are few things more demotivating than a boss who sets his team to work late all the time but runs off himself every day at 5 pm.

Q What industry developments have affected your role?

a Within the financial industry, the regulatory environment has been evolving rapidly, necessitating changes to operations, policies and processes, and perhaps particularly so in the online sector.

So while commercial contract, deal and advisory work remain core, in-house counsel in financial industries are increasingly being called upon to drive cross-functional projects.

There has also been an increasing emphasis on counsel providing value-added advice, taking a more commercial view, as opposed to adopting a more legalistic analysis.

Even with respect to the core contract work I mentioned earlier, I believe that there is scope to outsource standard contract work to jurisdictions where legal expertise can be obtained more cheaply. There are already such legal outsourcing companies in countries such as the Philippines.

Q hoW do you think your role Will evolve in the future?

a I predict that the role of senior in-house counsel will continue to evolve to expand to offering not just legal advice, but also provide guidance on whether any given management decision makes commercial and practical sense.

Q What Would you have become, if you Werent a laWyer?

a A software engineer. I spent my youth setting up bulletin board systems, learning hexadecimal and programming in HTML and Pascal, and even did some work in FoxPro (a database language). I am a huge nerd.

Q What profession/job could you not do? a Thats a difficult question! Im a huge believer that any job is worth doing if it involves an honest hard days work. That said, if we include competence as a factor, then probably being an auditor is something Id rule out for myself staring at thousands of spreadsheets and audit reports every day would probably put me to sleep! I have great respect for people who can maintain their focus staring at an endless stream of numbers.

Q What era does your favourite song come from?

a I have a wide taste in music, and love everything from heavy metal (Rob Zombie) to classical (Samuel Barbers Adagio for Strings). However, I most enjoy bopping to 80s retro music.

Q hoW Would your friends describe you? a Youd have to ask them! Looking back at my own life, I realise that Ive changed dramatically since law school and how friends describe me may depend on when they knew me. Now, I would like to think that they would use the words easy-going, health-conscious and patient.

Q What is the strangest intervieW Question you have ever been asked?

a Who would you like to have dinner with?. This came up within the government, during a senior officer assessment. Till this day Im still not sure what they were testing for!

JLegal thanks Royston Ng for his time and participation.

An InsIght Into... sponsored byGC InTerVIeW

Q What made you decide on a legal career?a When I graduated from junior college, I didnt really have a sense of what I wanted to do. By default, I applied for engineering in NTU as my father had done well in the field of engineering. However, as it turned out, while I was serving my National Service overseas, I saw firsthand the plight of the vulnerable and disadvantaged, which made me realise how lucky I was having grown up in Singapore, and that I wanted to be in a career in which I could serve to help others protect and advance their rights. Engineering was not optimal for this.

I struggled to bring up the subject of changing my course of study to my father, as he had been thrilled that I would follow in his footsteps (and had in fact personally handed in my application to the faculty). When I finally mustered the courage to tell him, to this day, I still remember him putting his arm around me and telling me that he would support me in whatever I wanted to do.

Q What does your role involve on a daily basis?a My job primarily involves making decisions to manage legal risk and finding creative solutions to enable our tactical and strategic business initiatives. This involves developing a deep understanding of the industry, and also possessing a detailed knowledge of how our products work.

Within the eCommerce space, a large part of my work also involves working together with our Government Relations team to develop, maintain and strengthen relationships with regulators across the jurisdictions we operate in. With the growing significance of eCommerce, we have

to maximise every engagement opportunity to ensure that regulators everywhere understand and are comfortable with how PayPal works.

Q hoW is your legal team structured?a My team comprises of three of us to cover all of South East Asia and India, although personally my coverage also includes Taiwan. I am fortunate that both my reports are capable attorneys who require little supervision. I trust both of them to lead key legal projects as well.

Q hoW do you motivate your team?a Ive led a number of different teams and my learning so far has been that every team is a collection of unique individuals with different motivations for what they do. Its important to invest the time to learn what excites each member of the team. You cant apply the same carrot for the entire team. Some lawyers embrace change and new challenges, while others like to specialise in a specific area.

Although each person is different, there are some behaviours which I remind myself to commit to.

First, work hard for your team. I believe that it is important for any manager to demonstrate that as hard as his team works for him, he is prepared to work as hard for his team to obtain opportunities, recognition, and rewards for them.

I wanted to be in a career in which I could serve to help others protect and advance their rights.

you cant apply the same carrot for the entire team. some lawyers embrace change and new challenges, while others like to specialise in a specific area.

Royston ng PayPalDirector, head of Legal south East Asia and India

singapore hong kong melbourne sydney london uae new zealand www.jlegal.com find jlegal oncontact us visit our website or contact us: t | +65 6818 9701 f | +65 6818 9704 e | [email protected]

SLG Interview double page v1.indd All Pages 05/08/2013 10:45

News


Mass Call

Liability for Internet Publication of Defamatory Comments

The internet provides various avenues for users to anonymously post comments and such users are notoriously difficult to trace. The cloak of anonymity enjoyed by the participants of online discourse can unfortunately lead to the tenor of the conversation taking a turn for the vitriolic, with trolling1 a common sight on online forums and blogs.

In the absence of the ability to trace the primary publisher of any allegedly defamatory comments, the web service provider hosting the comments will often be drawn directly into the line of fire, when the targets of such comments seek the removal of the comments and the vindication of their reputation. The topicality of the matter locally is also borne out by recent events. Given the dearth of local case law directly bearing on the issue, it is likely that recent developments in English jurisprudence, now codified into the English Defamation Act 2013, will influence the position under Singapore law.

The Payam Case

In that regard, the decision of the English Court of Appeal (per Richards LJ) in the case of Payam Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68 (Payam) earlier this year laid down

important guidelines vis-a-vis liability for internet publication of defamatory material.

Facts

The case concerned certain comments posted on a blog hosted on Blogger, an internet service provided by the respondent (Google Inc) allowing any internet user in the world to create and host an independent blog. The appellant (Mr Tamiz) alleged that the comments were defamatory of him and complained via the Report Abuse function on the relevant web page. A letter of claim was forwarded to Google Inc, whose principal place of business is in California. After seeking clarification from Mr Tamiz, and after some delay, Google Inc eventually forwarded the letter of claim to the blogger in question, who removed the comments.

Nevertheless, Mr Tamiz brought a claim in libel against Google Inc in respect of the publication of the allegedly defamatory comments during the period prior to their removal. Eady J in the High Court held that the Court should decline jurisdiction and that the lower Courts order for service out of jurisdiction be set aside. Mr Tamiz thus appealed to the Court of Appeal, which had to decide, inter

This article highlights recent developments in English law vis-a-vis internet publication of defamatory material and portends an approach along the same lines locally.

Feature


alia, whether there was an arguable case that Google Inc was a publisher of the comments.

The Decision

In deciding to dismiss the appeal, the Court of Appeals analysis of the chain of recent English cases dealing with liability for internet publication of defamatory comments is worth noting.

Before the Court of Appeal, counsel for Mr Tamiz, relying in particular on the Australian case of Trkulja v Google Inc (No. 5), had argued that the analysis in Bunt v Tilley [2007] 1 WLR 1243 (Bunt) was flawed as it was at odds with the principle of strict liability for publication, failed to accurately reflect the distinction between a primary and secondary publisher, and did not properly take account of the principles of vicarious liability or agency as they apply to render corporations liable for the publication of defamatory material by employees or agents.

The case of Bunt involved internet service providers and whether they were liable in respect of defamatory material communicated via the services they provided. In Bunt, Eady J held at [23] that for there to be liability for internet publication, there must be knowing involvement in the process of publication of the relevant words, and it is not enough that a person merely plays a passive instrumental role in the process. This analysis was further developed by Eady J in the subsequent case of Metropolitan International School v Designtechnica Corp [2011] WLR 1743 (Metropolitan International School), which involved the question of whether Google Inc was liable as publisher simply because whenever a search was performed on Google, the results page showed a search return of a website thread containing defamatory material. Eady J found at [50] that Google Inc was not liable because when a search is carried out by a web user via the Google search engine, it is performed automatically in accordance with computer programs without the input of any of Google Incs officers or employees. Google Inc had thus merely played the role of a facilitator.

While the Court of Appeal declined to fully address the criticisms of Bunt by counsel, it held that it was not persuaded that Eady J fell into any fundamental error of analysis or reached the wrong conclusion in relation to the kind of internet service under consideration in that case. The Court of Appeal, however, departed from Eady Js view in the High Court that the facts before it were so closely analogous to Bunt as to call for the same conclusion. In particular, the Court of Appeal found that it was wrong to regard Google Incs role in respect of the Blogger blogs as being a purely

passive one. As Google Inc had made the Blogger service available on its own terms and was able to remove access to any blog which failed to comply with those terms, this was sufficient to distinguish its involvement with the search engine in Metropolitan International School.

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal went on to hold that Google Inc could not be said to be either a primary or secondary publisher of the blog in question. As it did not create the blog or have any prior knowledge or effective control over its content, it was not a primary publisher. Relying on a long established line of case authority, the Court of Appeal held that neither could Google Inc be said to be a secondary publisher as it cannot be said to have either known or reasonably to have known of the defamatory comments prior to notification of the appellants complaint.

In relation to the position after notification of the complaint, however, the Court of Appeal critically departed from the findings of Eady J in the High Court. Relying on authorities which trace their genealogy to Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818 (Byrne), the Court of Appeal found that if Google Inc allows defamatory material to remain on a Blogger blog after notification, it can be said to have associated with, or to have made itself responsible for, the continued presence of the material on the blog and thereby to have become a publisher of the material. However, the Court of Appeal also qualified itself by stating that such an inference could only properly be drawn after Google Inc has had a reasonable time within which to remove the defamatory comments.

The case of Byrne concerned an allegedly defamatory verse posted on the wall of a golf club and allowed to remain there for some days by the proprietors of the golf club. The club rules provided that no notice or placard shall be posted in the club premises without the consent of the secretary. Addressing the question of liability for publication, Greene LJ identified the test as being: having regard to all the facts of the case, is the proper inference that by not removing the defamatory matter, the defendant really made himself responsible for its continued presence in the place where it had been put. Byrne was then applied in the case of Davidson v Habeeb and Ors [2011] EWHC 3031 (Habeeb), which involved facts largely analogous to that in Payam. Habeeb also involved Blogger, and the hosting by a blog of allegedly defamatory content. In Habeeb, HHJ Parkes QC distinguished between web service providers who were simply conduits or facilitators, and others who wielded more control over content. It was observed that Blogger could be analogised to a gigantic noticeboard under Google Incs control. While Google Inc could not be said to have the slightest familiarity with the notices posted before notification as the noticeboard contains such a

Feature


vast and constantly growing volume of material, if it fails to take them down upon notification, it can fairly be said to have consented to and participated in their publication.

Interestingly also is the battle of analogies. In the High Court in Payam, while Eady J noted the case of Habeeb and observed that the position may well be fact sensitive, he drew an analogy (at [38]) with the ownership of a wall which has been festooned, overnight, with defamatory graffiti, for which the unfortunate owner is not expected to acquire scaffolding and have it deleted with whitewash. The graffiti analogy was, however, rejected by the Court of Appeal (at [33]), which found the notice board analogy more apposite. Of particular significance is the Court of Appeals emphasis on the extent of Google Incs control over the blogs on Blogger: it may readily remove or block access to any notice that does not comply with its terms (without having to resort to scaffolding or whitewash). Thus, it may fairly be said that by allowing the defamatory material to remain after notification, Google Inc is taken to have assumed responsibility for the material.

Observations on Payam

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court of Appeal eventually dismissed the appeal on the de minimis principle as the period between notification of the complaint to Google Inc and the removal of the comments was so short as to give rise to any potential liability only for a very limited period. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals observations are likely to provide authoritative guidance on the issue of liability for internet publication, especially given its critical analysis of recent English cases, and the fact that it had the benefit of citation of authorities from various Commonwealth jurisdictions, including Australia and New Zealand.

In coming to its decision, the Court of Appeal adopted a framework for analysis hugely consistent with earlier cases. The key test remains that which was laid down in the case of Bunt, ie it is essential to demonstrate a degree of awareness or at least an assumption of general responsibility. Allowance is made for the internet being what it is: it would typically be unrealistic and foolhardy to expect any person or entity to be able to retain any form of meaningful control over the morass of information being constantly generated. Thus, prior to being notified of the existence of the allegedly defamatory material, and in the absence of any content policy explicitly assuming responsibility for content published on a website, the web service provider is unlikely to be deemed to have reasonably known or assumed responsibility for any comments posted.

Feature


Upon notification, however, if the provider has the ability to remove or block access to such comments, it is incumbent on it to take reasonable steps to do so. Failure to do so could possibly lead to liability for publication of the alleged defamatory content. Given the speed at which information proliferates on the internet, there is also the real spectre of liability of republication, if the defamatory material were to be re-posted on other websites.

The UK Defamation Act 2013

The English position is now codified in the UK Defamation Act 2013 (the UK Act). Under s 5(1) and (2) of the UK Act, where an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website, it would prima facie be a defence for the operator to show that it was not the party that posted the statement in question.

The prima facie defence will, however, be defeated if the claimant manages to show that:

1. It is not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement;

2. The claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint in relation to the statement; and

3. The operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint in accordance with any provision contained in the applicable subsidiary regulation.

(See s 5(3) of the UK Act)

It is further explained that it is possible for the claimant to identify a person only if the claimant has sufficient information to bring proceedings against the person (see s 5(4) of the UK Act). A notice of complaint is a notice which specifies the complainants name, sets out the statement

concerned and where on the website the statement was posted, explains why it is defamatory of the complainant, and contains such other information as may be specified in the applicable subsidiary regulation (see s 5(6) of the UK Act). Allowance is also made in the UK Act for the relevant subsidiary regulation to make provision as to the action required to be taken by an operator of a website in response to a notice of complaint, as well as to make provision for a specific time limit for the taking of any such action (see s 5(5) of the UK Act).

Interestingly, s 5(5) of the UK Act leaves open the possibility of subsidiary regulation obliging the website operator to reveal the identity or contact details of the person who posted the offending statement. This raises questions of the right balance to be struck between freedom of expression over the internet, which some might argue would include the right to post comments online under the cloak of anonymity, and countervailing factors such as the protection of reputation.

Concluding Remarks

The English case law and statutory position provide useful insights as to the proper balance to be struck between the protection of reputation and freedom of expression over the internet. Given the ever-increasing encroachment of the internet into all facets of public discourse, it is a matter of time before a case involving liability for internet publication properly comes before our Courts. When that happens, it will be interesting to see how the balance between the protection of reputation and freedom of expression over the internet is struck in Singapore and, in particular, the degree of responsibility web service providers are expected to assume in this new legal milieu. Of course, the position will also have to take into account the applicable statutory framework in Singapore, including but not limited to, the recently enacted licensing framework introduced by the Media Development Authority for online news sites.

* LL.B. (First Class Honours), National University of Singapore, 2011; Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. All views, errors and omissions contained in this article are entirely my own.

Notes

1 Trolling is described in Wikipedia as the sowing of discord on the internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages in an online community.

Keith Han* Associate, Litigation and Dispute Resolution Clifford Chance Asia E-mail: [email protected]

Feature


In his Keynote Address at the 2012 Congress of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration, Sundaresh Menon CJ suggested that the further development of a regulatory framework governing arbitrators would be desirable for the arbitration community. This article sets out one possible idea for consideration.

The Case for the Institutional Arbitral Ombudsman

Questions of accountability and control between humans have vexed society throughout history. In the context of public governance, the authors of The Federalist, No. 51 wrote with alacrity:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this; you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government: but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. (Emphases added)1

The same applies to the arbitral universe. In the context of arbitrators, both international and domestic, economic incentives have long been the primary source

of accountability and control capable and respected arbitrators are rewarded with increasing appointments while arbitrators less so are not.2 However, with the sheer amount of autonomy currently afforded to arbitrators,3 the increasing number of controversies left to the disposal of arbitrators carrying broad socio-economic policy implications,4 and (as some say) the increasing opacity of the arbitral process to laymen5 in this current golden age of arbitration6 comes also the increasing need for arbitral accountability.

This article sets out one possible way by which such arbitral accountability can be promoted: the creation of the office of the institutional arbitral ombudsman. Constituted by but operating auxiliary to international arbitral institutions, such an office would be vested with the capacity to exercise oversight over the institutions arbitral community. In this regard, we begin this article by examining the pedigree and

Feature


the nature of the ombudsmans office before proffering an argument why transposing such an office into the arbitration world would be desirable. Wrapping up, we conclude with practical suggestions on how exactly an ombudsmans office could be established and sustained in the arbitration world. The Ideaof the Ombudsman

Originally conceived as a Swedish-Finnish institution (the Hogste Ombudsmannen) in 1713,7 the idea of the ombudsman is a simple one the creation of an independent, neutral office to register and deal with complaints in an easy and informal way.8 In the sphere of public governance, the ombudsman is an official appointed by Parliament or an executive authority to whom citizens can bring complaints regarding Government officials or agencies.9 Vested with inquisitorial powers, the ombudsman would then investigate these complaints, and, should they be deemed reasonable, make appropriate recommendations to the offending agency for resolution.10

Examining the ombudsmans nature, Larry Hill writes:

I have isolated several defining characteristics: The classical ombudsman is (1) legally established, (2) functionally autonomous, (3) external to the administration, (4) operationally independent of both the legislature and the executive, (5) specialist, (6) expert, (7) nonpartisan, (8) normatively universalistic, (9) client-centered but not anti-administration, and (10) both popularly accessible and visible. The institutions mission is to generate complaints against government administration, to use its extensive powers of investigation in performing a post decision administrative audit, to form judgments which criticize or vindicate administrators, and to report publicly its findings and recommendations but not to change administrative decisions. Indeed, one of the institutions most interesting puzzles is its apparent effectiveness despite minimal coercive capabilities. (Emphasis added)11

Over the past five decades, the ombudsman idea has spread the world over; New Zealand established an ombudsmans office in 1961 and the UK in 1967.12 Australia followed soon after in the 1970s.13

Displaying a protean capacity for adaptation and evolution in response to new aspects of the problems of power, the ombudsman idea has since grown from being merely an instrument for public administrative accountability to become also one for private industry self-regulation.14 Beyond public

ombudsmen, private industries contemporarily establish ombudsman offices to promote accountability within their ranks. In so doing, these ombudsman offices build a greater sense of confidence amongst their industrys actual and potential customers.15

Of particular interest to the arbitration world would be two comparatively recent developments in the UK ombudsmen for Judges and lawyers. First, for Judges, the UK in 2006 inaugurated its Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) together with its Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC). The OJC exists as part of the English Ministry of Justice and deals with complaints regarding the personal conduct of Judges. Examples of such judicial misconduct include the use of insulting, racist or sexist language in court and inappropriate behaviour outside court such as a judge using their judicial title for personal advantage or preferential treatment.16 A functional complement to the OJC, the JACO is an independent office that exercises oversight over the OJCs processes.

Together, the OJC and the JACO regulate approximately 3,700 members of the full and part time judiciary, 27,000 magistrates, and several thousand tribunal members in the UK.17 They do so with a combined staff of not more than 25 and a combined annual budget of approximately 1.5 million.18 In the reporting period of 2011-2012, the OJC dealt with 1,615 complaints, of which 79 resulted in disciplinary action. For transparency, press statements are released on the OJCs website whenever formal disciplinary sanction following a finding of misconduct is imposed.19 A large majority of complaints (601 out of the 1,615 in 2011-2012) are about inappropriate behaviour or comments coming from judicial officers.20

Second, with regard to lawyers, in October 2010, the UKs Office of Legal Complaints (commonly and hereinafter referred to as the Legal Ombudsman) began operation a result of recommendations from the 2005 White Paper, The Future of Legal Services: Putting Consumers First.21 This Legal Ombudsman exists independently from the legal professions professional bodies like the Law Society and the Bar Council and is empowered to deal with all complaints regarding lawyers.22 After investigations, the Legal Ombudsman has the power to make binding determinations23 directing a respondent to:

1. Apologise to the complainant;

2. Forego all or part of the respondents fee;

3. Pay the complainant a determined amount to compensate for any loss, inconvenience or distress;

Feature


4. Correct or redo any work responsible for any error, omission or deficiency at their own expense (with no charge to the complainant); or

5. At their own expense, take such other action as is specified in the direction and in the interest of the complainant.24

The Legal Ombudsman regulates the approximately 120,000 practising solicitors and 15,000 barristers (amongst patent/trademark attorneys, licensed conveyancers and notaries) in the UK. Significantly larger than the OJC/JACO, it does so with approximately 250 employees and an annual budget of approximately 20 million, funded for primarily by a levy upon the English legal profession.25 For the reporting year 2011-2012, the Legal Ombudsman made approximately 8,400 investigations, and 35 per cent of these culminated in a formal ombudsman decision.26 As with the OJC, the Legal Ombudsman publicises its decisions on its website to promote public confidence in the legal profession and the sharing of knowledge. However, given the less public nature of the legal profession as opposed to the judiciary, the Legal Ombudsmans publicises its decisions with names redacted.

The Needfor the Arbitral Ombudsman

To the best of the authors knowledge and research, no arbitral institution worldwide currently has an ombudsman arrangement in place. This is surprising given the quasi-judicial role of arbitrators and the potential size and impact of arbitral awards not just commercially but also trans-nationally in this day and age. Whilst national Courts retain the jurisdiction to regulate arbitrators through their capacity to set aside awards, they are (as put by Sundaresh Menon CJ at the ICCA 2012 Congress recently) ill-suited to truly fulfil a regulatory role. This is because the principle of minimal curial interference has led to only the most egregious of arbitrator misconduct being likely to warrant non-enforcement by the national courts.27 In this section, we will examine the shortfalls of the other current arbitration accountability mechanisms before suggesting how these could be overcome with the introduction of an ombudsmans office.

Besides curial oversight and classical economic/reputational forces, the current regulatory framework for arbitrators comprises: (i) informal guidelines; and (ii) the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Professional Conduct Committee. One example of an informal guideline is the Code of Conduct of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators (SIArb Code).28 The SIArb Code sets out, inter alia, that SIArb members who accept arbitrator appointments have duties

to act fairly and to maintain impartiality and confidence. However, because the SIArb does not formally exercise a specific supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration matters of its members, it leaves the task of the policing of these duties to national Courts, resulting in, as aforementioned, only the most egregious of arbitrator misconduct being censured.

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators likewise has in place informal guidelines for its members (the CIArbs Practice Guidelines and Code of Professional and Ethical Conduct), but goes one step further to promote compliance. It does this by maintaining an internal committee charged with investigating misconduct complaints made against members the CIArb Professional Conduct Committee (PCC).29 Several structural factors impede the PCC, however, from being truly able to constitute an effective arbitral regulatory mechanism.

The first structural impediment to the current regulatory framework of the PCC relates to its limited investigative capacity. Upon the receipt of a complaint, the PCC first determines whether a prima facie case of misconduct exists based on an examination of the papers submitted by the complainant and the respondent.30 If a prima facie case is not established this way, it appears nothing further occurs. It is questionable if this process will always be sufficient for the unravelling of arbitrator/member misconduct. At times, conceivably, even if the complaint is not unmeritorious, the complainant would simply not have access to documents that could implicate the respondent arbitrator/member. Such documents could include records or notes taken before, during the course of, or after arbitral proceedings by arbitrators or opposing counsel. It is unclear if the PCC could or would compel the production of such documents for the purposes of investigation, particularly at this interlocutory stage where the complainant bears the onus of establishing a prima facie case, and particularly where multiple jurisdictions are involved. In its current structure thus, complainants with meritorious grievances who do not have in their possession, custody or power documents sufficient to establish a prima facie case of misconduct (even if these documents exist elsewhere) can only expect their complaints to flounder.

The second structural impediment is that of non-independence. The PCCs members are drawn from the same pool of persons that the PCC is supposed to regulate (ie CIArbs members), and the PCC operates within the governance structure of the CIArb itself. This gives rise to the distinct possibility of the perception of institutional (or incumbent) bias, where committee members are perceived to be partial to their peers.31 As put by Sundaresh Menon

Feature


CJ: Members of the same institution are slow to condemn the behaviour of a fellow arbitrator, especially in the field of international arbitration where the principal players enjoy such close relations.32 Regardless of the merits of such claims, the mere fact that such allegations exist is cause for concern, and does not portend well for the arbitration industrys desire to build public confidence in its accountability mechanisms.

The third structural impediment is that of inaccessibility. Parties who deal with arbitration may range from sophisticated corporations with elaborate business infrastructures and ready access to legal advice to smaller, less experienced individuals or companies with rudimentary administrative capacity.33 Under the PCCs current complaints process, complainants have to submit four copies of their complaint together with supporting documents and a covering letter with full details of the allegation being made, the relevance of any accompanying documents and the reasons why the complainant believes the members behaviour or actions are to constitute misconduct.34 The process also states, inter alia, that complaints should be sent by first class post to the CIArbs Director of Legal Services. These procedural requirements create an aura of austerity that may operate with a chilling effect, particularly on less sophisticated complainants. In sharp contrast to the English OJC and the Legal Ombudsman considered earlier, the PCC in 2011, despite exercising oversight over approximately 12,000 members, had just 14 complaints (NB. The OJC had 1,615, and the Legal Ombudsman had approximately 8,400). Even after normalising the numbers into a ratio of number of complaints:class of persons supervised, this is minuscule compared to the OJC/Legal Ombudsman. Whilst these statistics may suggest perhaps that arbitrators have better conduct than Judges and lawyers, human experience together with the recent proliferation of academic commentary on the issue of arbitrator misconduct35 suggests that that simply cannot

be true. It is instead suggested that there are misconduct situations that are simply not being caught by the system as it currently stands.

Having an arbitral ombudsman would solve all three of the above issues. By definition, such an ombudsmans office would be independent, easily accessible, and publicly vested with investigative powers sufficient for it to exercise effective oversight over the arbitration industry. The ombudsman would exist independently of the governance structure of arbitral institutions, and would be accorded inquisitorial powers allowing for the taking and inspection of documents for the thorough investigation of complaints. His would be a dedicated office, and publicised with much greater prominence than the PCC currently. Vested with discretionary initiative, the ombudsman would also be able to swiftly decide if a complaint is worth pursuing, based on his experienced judgment, even if the complainant lacks access to incriminating documents.

The direct beneficiaries of the appointment of such an arbitral ombudsman would be the users of arbitral services. Users with well-founded grievances but who would otherwise be unable to attain redress under the current regulatory mechanisms would be more likely to have their issues addressed with the presence of the ombudsman, and those with less well-founded grievances would also benefit in that the ombudsman would be a more easily accessible platform for them to be heard.36

Less directly, consumers of arbitral services in general would also benefit in being able to draw comfort from the knowledge that they could pursue a complaint if they chose, and that their matters would be conducted in the shadow of the ombudsmans oversight.37 This would build confidence amongst those contemplating the use of arbitration services a result undoubtedly in the collective interest of the arbitration community worldwide.

Feature


The Proposalof the Institutional Arbitral Ombudsman

No idea is complete without a practical way for transposing it into reality. Given that arbitral institutions are the nodes around which arbitrators operate, the obvious purview an arbitral ombudsman should have would be over these institutions. It is submitted that an ombudsmans office would be appropriate for both international and domestic professional arbitration associations (like the CIArb and the SIArb respectively) as well as for centres of arbitral dispute resolution like the SIAC, the LCIA, or the DIFC. Ombudsmen for arbitration associations would regulate the activities of their members, and those for arbitration centres would regulate activities conducted within these centres. Whilst these jurisdictions would surely overlap at times, the presence of reciprocal arrangements and information sharing agreements between different institutional ombudsmen would be a simple way to resolve issues arising therefrom. Because of the benefits of scale, however, it is submitted that it would be most practical for the CIArb itself to lead the way with the appointment of an ombudsman.

From the experiences of existing ombudsman schemes, there are two principal difficulties in establishing ombudsman schemes that should be addressed. The first is that of funding. Ombudsman offices are costs centres that do not directly generate revenue. The value they provide lies in an intangible form they boost public confidence and develop a culture of accountability. If, as argued above, this benefit is sufficient to justify the cost of such an office, it is submitted that a hybrid funding model combining aspects from the English Legal Ombudsman and the Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman would be most appropriate for the arbitration industry the ombudsman

of an arbitral association could be funded by a general levy on the associations members, supplemented by fees billed directly against complainee members in a tiered system. Under this system, complainee members will be billed appropriately low fixed amounts if their respective complaints end up dismissed, and higher amounts if they are found guilty of misconduct. This billing system would thus serve a dual function: both funding the arbitral ombudsmans office as well as constituting an additional economic incentive for members to appropriately regulate their own conduct.

The second difficulty is then that of locating a suitable ombudsman. In this regard, it is suggested that the best candidates for arbitral ombudsmen would be retired Judges. It is interesting to note that in recent years, there have been many Judges who re-join the arbitration world after their retirement from the Bench.38 Instead of assisting in discrete arbitration matters as they now do, it is suggested that such retired Judges could instead consider taking on the broader-based mantle of an institutional arbitral ombudsman, contributing instead through the positions accountability function to the promotion of arbitration as a choice dispute resolution mechanism to the public. Substantively, retired Judges would also be particularly suited to such an ombudsman role as they would be likely to have the life experience and sensitivity necessary to effectively handle complainants and complainees of disparate cultures and sophistication, and the well-honed forensic ability necessary to swiftly distil the legit from the specious. Given their judicial background and standing, such persons would likely also have the gravitas necessary to avoid unwarranted aspersions of bias and partiality and would, therefore, better command the respect of both the arbitration community and the public.

Feature


Coming full circle, the arbitration community depends upon for its continued flourishing the satisfaction of its users and the acceptance of the societies within which it operates. For these to be meaningfully achieved, arbitrators cannot be left with power unchecked beyond the narrow scope of curial supervision. Whilst internal guidelines and oversight committees are all well and good, we are reminded once again that experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. It is thus submitted that, with its distinct capacity to increase arbitral accountability and public confidence, the institutional arbitral ombudsman is a proposition that the arbitration community should seriously consider and implement.

*The author thanks his supervising partner, Edwin Lee Peng Khoon, Eldan Law LLP, for his support and encouragement in the writing of this article. All errors, and opinions expressed herein are the authors own.

Notes

1 ACUS, Federal Administrative Sourcebook (Washington DC, 1985) at v.

2 See Yves Dezalay & Bryan Garth, Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order (University of Chicago Press, 1998).

3 See Sundaresh Menon CJ, International Arbitration: The Coming of a New Age for Asia (and Elsewhere), speech delivered for the ICCA Congress 2012 Keynote Address, at [25], [36], [49].

4 Menon CJ, note 3 above, at [1].

5 Menon CJ, note 3 above, at [47]-[50].

6 Menon CJ, note 3 above, at [1], [81].

7 H B Jacobini, An Introduction to Comparative Administrative Law (Oceane Publications, 1991) at 199.

NB. The Hogste Ombudsmannen, later renamed the Justitiekanseler, is an ombudsman appointed by the executive branch of Government. The legislative ombudsman, a creature of Parliament, came later in 1809 in Sweden in the form of the office of the Justitieombudsman. Over time, the idea of a parliamentary ombudsman spread to the English speaking world; to New Zealand in 1961, the UK in 1967, and to Australia in the 1970s.

8 Jacobini, note 7 above, at 198.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Larry Hill, Institutionalization, the Ombudsman, and Bureaucracy (1974) 68 The American Political Science Review 3 at 1077.

12 Jacobini, note 6 above, at 203-205.

Charles Tay* Trainee Solicitor Eldan Law LLP, Singapore E-mail: [email protected]

13 NB. With the state of Western Australia being the first Australian jurisdiction to do so in 1971; the Australian Commonwealth institutionalised its ombudsman in 1976. See Robin Cryeke & John McMillan, Control of Government Action: Text, Cases & Commentary (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2009) at 244.

14 Michael Harris and Michael Partington, Administrative Justice in the 21st Century (Hart Publishing, 1999) 134.

15 Harris and Partington, note 15 above, at 145.

16 See OJC, Can the Office for Judicial Complaints Help you?; available at: http://judicialcomplaints. judiciary.gov.uk/about/about.htm, accessed 11 May 2013.

17 See OJC Annual Report 2011-2012.

18 OJC Business Plan 2011-2012; JACO Annual Report 2011-2012.

19 OJC Annual Report 2011-2012.

20 Ibid.

21 See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101013220527/http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announce ment 071010a.htm. The White Paper is available at: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm66/ 6679/ 6679.pdf (accessed 11 May 2013).

22 See Explanatory Notes to the Legal Services Act 2007 (UK) at [310]-[325].

23 NB. This is a step away from the classical ombudsman model, described above by Hill, note 11 above, under which ombudsmen are only empowered to make non-binding recommendations. It is to be observed that modern private sector ombudsmen are increasingly being vested with the power to make binding determinations, subject to defined criteria, against complaint respondents.

24 See Explanatory Notes to the Legal Services Act 2007 (UK) at [303].

25 See Legal Ombudsman Annual Report 2011-2012.

26 Ibid.


28 SIArb, Panel of Arbitrators: Code of Conduct; available at: http://www.siarb.org.sg/Index_Conduct_ of_Conduct.html, accessed 11 May 2013.

29 CIArb, Professional Conduct Committee; available at: http://www.ciarb.org/about/who-we-are/governance-and-structure/professional-conduct-committee/, accessed 11 May 2013..

30 CIArb, Complaints Booklet: How CIArb Investigates Complaints of Misconduct Against its Members; available at: http://www.ciarb.org/about/2013/04/17/Complaints%20booklet1%20%282%29.pdf, accessed 11 May 2013.

31 See generally, Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70.


33 See generally, Seabay Properties Pty Ltd v Galvin Construction Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] VSC 183 at [135].

34 CIArb Complaints Booklet.

35 See eg Professor William Park, Arbitrator Integrity: The Transient and the Permanent (2009) 46 San Diego Law Review 629; Professor Jan Paulsson, Moral Hazard in International Dispute Resolution (29 April 2010, Inaugural lecture delivered as holder of the Michael R Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair at the University of Miami School of Law); Menon CJ, note 3 above.

36 Harris and Partington, note 15 above, at 144-145.

37 Harris and Partington, note 15 above, at 145.

38 Influx of retired judges threatens to flood arbitration and ADR markets, article in The Lawyer (24 March 2008); available online at: http://www.thelawyer.com/influx-of-retired-judges-threatens-to-flood-arbitration-and-adr-markets/131851.article, accessed 11 May 2013.

Feature


This article explores whether Singapore Courts should expand the traditional tort of breach of confidence to act as an independent and general cause of action for the invasion of ones privacy, in light of developments in the United Kingdom, Australia and Malaysia. It argues that recognition of privacy rights is a matter best left for the legislature and that the existing law in Singapore sufficiently protects personal private facts of individuals, without need for a general cause of action for invasion of privacy.

Old Fashioned Breach of Confidence: The Singapore Approach to Privacy LawIt is well established that the law protects confidential information in the commer

singapore law gazette (august 2013)

Documents