Singapore Insurance Law Round Up (July- September 2025)
In this article we draw together our various social media posts on insurance law developments in Singapore between 1 July 2025 and 30 September 2025.
(1) New rules for cyclists and non-motorised PMD users
From today (1 July) cyclists and users of non-motorised PMDs can be penalised for riding on designated pedestrian-only footpaths. Watch out for the new Pedestrians Only markings!
These new rules may impact on the apportionment of liability for accidents in appropriate cases
(2) Lloyd’s Market Association has launched a new clause to strengthen sanctions compliance in (re)insurance contracts.
Clause LMA5670 – General Sanctions Financial Crime Documentation Clause - is designed to enhance the ability of (re)insurers and brokers to comply with evolving sanctions regulations by giving contractual rights to access documentation. See attached LMA guidance note for more information
(3) Whilst the waters along our coast may look serene, the risks beneath the surface are growing more complex and unpredictable
According to CNA, there are
➡️ Strong, unpredictable currents
➡️ Climate-related impacts like rising sea levels
➡️ Increased maritime congestion and vessel traffic
➡️Increased presence of “dark” or rogue vessels navigating the Straits
Possible Insurance and Legal Implications arising from these risks:
⚓Pollution events - insurers may be on the hook for oil spills, third-party property damage, and clean-up costs.
⚓ Business Interruption - blockage or damage to port infrastructure (e.g., at Jurong Island) could have cascading BI effects across multiple insureds—are risk models factoring this interdependence?
⚓Security threats - rogue ships and cyber threats (like GPS spoofing) raise the bar for underwriters. Policies must evolve to address emerging perils, from grey-zone maritime tactics to sabotage of undersea cables and port infrastructure.
⚓ Sanctions compliance - are insured vessels engaged in prohibited activities?
Original article - https://lnkd.in/gn5HD6wx
(4) Important development in the law of professional privilege - Madison Pacific Trust Ltd [2025] SGHC 128
Important development in the law of professional privilege – High Court endorses looking at whether disclosure would reveal the nature or content of the confidential advice given or sought rather than asking if the document was a communication or a fact.
In Madison Pacific Trust Ltd and others v David Salim and another [2025] SGHC 128 the joint and several receivers and managers (the “R&Ms”) of Mr David Salim were seeking production of information from Mr Salim’s former lawyer about Mr Salims assets. Information was sought pursuant to the terms of a receivership order. Production was resisted on the basis that the requested information was protected by legal professional privilege.
For certain categories of information, the High Court was prepared to order production as the communications caught would not have been made for the purpose of seeking GLC’s legal advice. Instead, the communications were between Mr Salim and his lawyer for the purpose of paying legal fees.
For other categories of information, the court held that there was a risk that the request may capture privileged information. Here the court noted that the historic dichotomy of facts (unprotected) and advice (protected) was not always a clear one. The judge opined that the law should adopt a contextual approach which asks whether disclosure would reveal the nature or content of the confidential advice sought by or given to the client. In the view of court, this contextual approach better coheres with the ultimate test endorsed in Skandinaviska at [47], namely whether the communication or other document was made confidentially for the purposes of legal advice.
As to whether the R&Ms could obtain the information in the latter category notwithstanding that it may be privileged, the Judge answered in the negative. This was because the privilege belonged to Mr Salim and the receivership order did not authorise the R&Ms to review privileged information or waive Mr Salim’s privilege. To order disclosure would effectively compel the receivership respondent, as an individual, to relinquish or waive legal privilege, when they were not the holders of the privilege
(5) WICA, Employer's Liability and Public Liability insurers take note!
The State Courts has proposed routing all new workplace and industrial accident claims to mandatory Early Intervention Case Conference (“EICC”) to
(1) help identify all potential defendants before the matter progresses further, and
(2) explore amicable resolution
It is envisaged that all named Defendants and their insurers would be expected to attend the EICC either in person of via their lawyers.
A step towards cost-effective case management
More details to follow.
(6) A ride worth watching
This recent Straits Times article sheds light on how different regulators have battled with the fair transfer of risk associated with driverless cars. The article notes:
"In China, there are no clear self-driving vehicle regulations at the national level, with policing left largely to local city governments.
Despite rising adoption, Ping An Insurance is so far the only insurer in the country to have come up with a dedicated policy for autonomous vehicles.
In Guangzhou, existing laws and frameworks apply. In Shenzhen, the vehicle owner is liable if there is no one at the wheel.
Britain took a different tack, passing an Act in May 2024 that will create new legal entities – likely the vehicle manufacturer and software developer – and hold them responsible if an autonomous vehicle breaks traffic rules when driving itself. This will take effect in 2027.
Singapore, which took baby steps in 2017 to regulate the testing of self-driving vehicles, will need to conduct a thorough review soon to decide which legal path it wants to take."
Original article https://lnkd.in/gG89f9-y
(7) New case on determination of a preliminary issue - Straco Leisure Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 150
It is not common to see Singapore court disputes routed for determination of a preliminary issue. As such, it was heartening to see a subrogated claim proceeding for such a determination in Straco Leisure Pte Ltd v Sumitomo (Shi) Cyclo Drive Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 150.
The claim arose from the breakdown of the Singapore Flyer in January 2018. The owners of the Flyer and its insurer took the view that the breakdown arose from repair works carried out by the Defendant. The Defendant denied liability but also contended that even if its works had caused the breakdown, their standard limitation clause had been incorporated into the parties' contractual relationship. This issue of incorporation of terms proceeded for preliminary determination.
The Singapore High Court held that the limitation clause was not incorporated. There were insufficient documents for there to be express incorporation or incorporation by reasonable notice. As to incorporation by prior course of dealing, the court said that there was insufficient clarity and consistency in the prior course of dealings for there to be incorporation of the term in question.
(8) The Riddick principle in Singapore Compania De Navegacion Palomar SA [2025] SGHC 153
The Riddick principle was recently considered by the High Court in Compania De Navegacion Palomar SA and others v Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala and another suit and another matter [2025] SGHC 153. The following observations were made.
➡️ The Riddick principle states that a party that obtains discovery may only use the discovered documents, and the information obtained therefrom, for the purpose of pursuing the action in respect of which discovery is obtained.
➡️ The principle applies where one party compels another, either by enforcement of a rule of court or a specific order of the court, to disclose documents or information. The principle also applies to documents disclosed to resist an application for disclosure. It does not, however, apply to voluntary disclosure.
➡️ The implied undertaking not to use documents for other purposes is an obligation owed to the court, and one which only the court can modify.
➡️ The principle seeks to strike a balance between, on one hand, the public interest in full and complete disclosure in the interests of justice, and on the other hand, the privacy that discovery on compulsion intrudes upon.
(9) Interim payments: new rules, little change - Ng Zhi Liang [2025] SGHCR 123
Ng Zhi Liang v Voon Gie Min [2025] SGHCR 123 is one of the first reported decisions on the interim payment regime in the Rules of Court 2021. Whilst these new rules are worded and structured differently from the 2014 rules, the High Court opined that there are sufficient similarities in the wording for the cases decided under the old rules to still be of relevance.
The High Court held that the approach of the court should be as follows:
(1) Assess, on the basis of the Five Factors, whether an interim payment order should be made. The Five Factors are (i) the amount of the Claimant’s claim, (ii) whether the Defendant has admitted liability or been found liable or whether the Claimant has a strong case to establish liability on the part of the Defendant to pay a substantial sum of money, (iii) the reasons why the Claimant requires an interim payment, (iv) the existence of any contributory negligence, set off or counterclaim (v) Defendant’s ability to make the interim payment.
(2) If an interim payment order should be made, assess what the quantum of payment should be. The starting point on quantum should be the minimum sum recoverable by the claimant from the defendant, with adjustments made (if necessary) with reference to the Five Factors.
On the facts of the case, the Claimant sought $100,000 interim payment on a claim quantified at $614,285.03. As IJ was already entered at 90% in the Claimant’s favour, there was already liability established (although causation was reserved in the IJ, the court was of the view that the bulk of the injuries appeared to flow from the accident). Looking at the minimum sum that the Claimant was likely to get at trial, the court was satisfied that the Claimant would get $122,116.53 (being 90% of $67,000 for pain and suffering + $15,000 for future medical expenses, $51,615.03 for medical expenses incurred and $2,070 for transport expenses incurred). The court therefore awarded $100,000.
Claims offers should take note of this case as interim payment applications are commonly encountered.
(10) Rawson v TUI UK - excellent reading for claims officers or lawyers handling food poisoning cases
The Claimant in Rawson v TUI UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 2093 was a UK national became ill three days into her Mexican holiday. A stool sample taken several weeks later when the Claimant was back in the UK revealed the presence of cyclospora, a pathogen that is found in some locations in Mexico but is rarely, if ever, found in the UK. This pathogen as an incubation period of 2 to 14 days. However, a stool sample taken by the UK's leading lab did not find any cyclospora.
The case involved a fight between experts about cause of the Claimant's illness.
The trial judge held that the Claimant had failed to establish causation. The judge placed emphasis on issues such as the expert lab in the UK not finding cyclospora in the stool sample, the lack of other holiday-makers reporting ill and the possibility that the food poisoning was from food consumed in the UK or on the way to the resort.
Permission to appeal was allowed, but the appeal was unsuccessful. The appeal judge noting the threshold for appellate intervention and upholding the trial judges reasoning.
(11) “WIN WIN” Case: English Court of Appeal confirms insurers must pay out after vessel detained in Indonesian waters.
In a significant decision handed down on 30 July 2025, the Court of Appeal of England & Wales upheld the claimants’ entitlement to insurance indemnity following the detention of the Capesize bulk carrier WIN WIN by Indonesian authorities.
The vessel had been anchored in the eastern outside port limits of Singapore, but part of the vessel was in Indonesian waters. Despite the minor nature of the infraction, the vessel was seized and detained by Indonesia for 18 months and the vessel’s Master received a suspended sentence of 7 months’ imprisonment and a fine of around US$7,000.
The claimants sought cover under the vessel’s war risks policy after the ship had been detained for more than six months, triggering a constructive total loss (CTL) under the policy’s Detainment Clause. The insurers denied the claim, arguing that the loss was excluded under the American Institute Hull War Risks and Strikes Clauses’ exclusion for detainment under customs or quarantine regulations (the argument was that even though the detention was not for customs or quarantine related regulations, the effect of the detention was similar) , and also alleging a breach of the duty of fair presentation for nondisclosure of criminal charges against the vessel’s sole nominee director.
The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, holding that
🛳️ the detention was unrelated to customs or quarantine regulations and thus did not trigger the exclusion.
🚢 sole nominee director was not “senior management” under the Insurance Act 2015, and the claimants had no actual or constructive knowledge of the criminal charges, so no breach of duty occurred
Case citation - Delos Shipholding SA & Ors v Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty SE & Ors (“WIN WIN”) [2025] EWCA Civ 1019.
(12) Singapore private investigators see spike in work injury claim cases - Sleepless nights over the known unknown
A recent CNA article reported demand is rising among private investigation firms in Singapore for surveillance missions: To verify whether work injury claimants have genuine injuries.
Fraud investigators have sleepless nights over the known unknown arising from undetected fraud threats eventually posing a larger risk and producing a negative impact on the business result and premium development.
In an analogy the greatest threat to the safe passage of the Titanic was lurking below the surface of the sea arising from the risk of a collision with an iceberg which body is mostly floating hidden under the water.
The best way to defend against claims fraud risks is the use of a risk-based fraud evaluation process.
The assessment of current fraud threats and their impact on the financial result is the starting point.
Insurers will make informed decisions based on the outcome of the fraud risk evaluation and reposition their scarce investigation resources on the defense in high-fraud lines of business or products.
Only detected fraud attacks can be successfully investigated. Thus, the higher the detection rate is the more frauds are discoverable.
Insurers committed to a zero-fraud tolerance policy have a wide range of fraud detection methods at their disposal, surveillance of suspects in injury claims is one of them.
Prioritizing the rate of fraud detection will shine more light on the unknown in the fraud landscape.
https://lnkd.in/gRhKmZqq
(13) High Court holds that a claimant had acted reasonably in trying to mitigate his loss following a road traffic accident - Fauzi bin Noh [2025] SGHC 172
The Claimant in Fauzi bin Noh v Zulkepli bin Husain (MSIG Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd, intervener) [2025] SGHC 172 was 50 years old and was a Malaysian working for a Singapore micro-piling company at the time of the accident. In the accident he broke his collar bone and ankle. The injuries affected his work performance and he was let go. He then sued the tort-feasor for, amongst other things, his loss of earnings.
The High Court AR awarded the Claimant pre-trial loss of income but applied a discount because the Claimant had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss. Specifically there was a lack of effort on the Claimant’s part to find a job in Singapore which would have significantly reduced his income loss.
➡️ On appeal, the judge disagreed with the AR. The judge reasoned that the principle of mitigation requires the court to determine whether the mitigation measures taken by the aggrieved party were reasonable, and not whether the aggrieved party took the best possible measures to reduce its loss. Whilst the requisite standard of reasonableness is said to be an objective one, it clearly takes into account the subjective circumstances of the aggrieved party.
➡️ On the facts, the Claimant had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss. There was undisputed objective medical evidence that the Claimant had disabilities which affected his movement and it was reasonable for him to seek replacement work in his hometown rather than Singapore. There were also Covid restrictions which made it hard for the Claimant to re-enter Singapore.
(14) Singapore Academy of Law has announced it is releasing and AI powered search engine on LawNet
GPT-Legal Q&A will allow users to ask legal research questions in natural language rather than by Boolean search. According to media reports, the developers say that to guard against hallucinations, GPT-Legal Q&A is designed to refer only to the materials it is trained on and if asked a question outside its scope, GPT-Legal Q&A will say it cannot answer it.
🧐 Users should note, however, that the developer is not guaranteeing there will be no hallucinations. Currently no AI model is 100% accurate – this is because of the nature of the beast.
🤓 We are sure legal PI insurers will want us to point out that users should verify the correctness of any AI generated material.
(15) The Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006 and work injury claims
The Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA) 2006 is frequently used by injured workers in common law claims to show breaches of duty of care.
Did you know that the WSHA sets out offences which certain persons including company officers can be prosecuted for?
In Public Prosecutor v Yeo Teck Soon [2025] SGHC 179 the High Court considered the liability of a company and its director for providing corroded scaffold frames to a construction site for use in a formwork. The areas of corrosion had been painted over. The scaffold poles were used and the formwork collapsed. Investigations revealed that the corrosion reduced the load bearing capacity of the formwork.
At first instance, the company and director were found guilty of breaching Section 16(1)(b) and were fined $280,000 and $150,000 respectively.
On appeal the court considered what the sentencing framework should be for offences under s 16(1)(b) read with ss 20 and 48(1) and punishable under s 50(a) of the WSHA and also whether the first instance judge erred in assessing the director’s culpability to be low.
The High Court held that a two-stage framework should be applied - the court should look first at level of harm posed by the offence and second at the level of the offender’s culpability for the offence.
📣 The level of harm is assessed objectively.
📣 When assessing an officer’s culpability, the court can consider:
(i) The officer’s role in the company (including whether it was within the officer’s primary responsibility to deal with matters of health and safety and whether the officer was able to participate in decision making on health and safety issues).
(ii) The extent of the officer’s participation in the company’s breach of its Part IV Duty (including the offer’s mental state, whether the officer took steps in connection with the offence, whether the officer made any effort to find out what he was required to do in terms of health and safety and the extent to which the officer was involved in the actual commission of the offence
(iii) The officer’s duration of offending.
(iv) Whether the officer’s offending conduct was motivated by financial gain or the avoidance of costs.
📣 Further, the court can consider the Company’s culpability for the act if there is a direct nexus between the officer’s acts and/or omissions and his company’s breach of duty. Further, the officer’s culpability should be assessed independently and is not automatically pegged to his company’s level of culpability
On the second issue, the court held that the lower court was correct that the offer’s culpability was low. The culture of trusting one’s colleagues to do their job did not amount to a culture of indifference to safety consciousness.
The prosecution was unable to succeed with its appeal on the adequacy of SOPs and training as these issues had not been put to the witnesses at trial (the principle in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 applied).
(17) Is a standby letter of credit a letter of credit or a performance bond? Watch this space!
Is a standby letter of credit a letter of credit or a performance bond? The Appellate Division of the High Court in DJY v DJZ and another [2025] SGHC(A) 18 has left the discussion open for another day. However, the court did observe that the key difference is that payment on a performance bond can be restrained for fraud OR unconscionability whereas payment on a letter of credit can only be restrained if there is fraud. The court also observed that, if there is no unconscionability on the facts of the case, it would follow that there would also be no fraud (although the converse is not true).
(18) Understanding the Propensity to Commit Insurance Fraud
The Insurance Business is built on Trust! An eye-opening article in the Journal of Public Affairs in the USA, 2024, published the following findings about insurance fraud:
- “Recent surveys indicate that a surprising proportion of Americans have thought about or committed insurance fraud;
- One in five has considered committing insurance fraud;
- one in ten has committed it;
- Fifteen percent of homeowners and 9% of car insurance policyholders admit to committing insurance fraud;
- Young Americans were more likely than their older counterparts to mislead insurers;
- 39% of Millennial auto insurance policyholders said they used deceptive practices to reduce premiums compared with 3% of Baby Boomers;
Insurance fraud also undermines trust between insurers and consumers.
For an effective insurance market, consumers must trust that insurers will fairly price policies and pay claims, but insurers also must trust consumers.
In the absence of that trust, insurers must engage in practices to combat fraud, practices which often communicate mistrust of consumers.”
Here in Asia insurers need to start publicizing regular surveys concerning the propensity to commit fraud in their respective markets.
Insurers are called upon to build trust with consumers. Trust building fraud awareness and specific fraud prevention and deterrence campaigns are mandatory elements of a Robust Fraud Risk Control Framework.
Is your fraud control framework in place?
(19) Lessons on asserting privilege from Wesley Widjaja [2025] SGHCR 32
Wesley Widjaja v Ng Wei San and others [2025] SGHCR 32 (a decision of AR Wee Yen Jean).
❗ What would a party need to do in order to assert legal professional privilege over documents that he had been ordered to produce?
The filing of an affidavit is not a prerequisite for asserting privilege and the absence of an affidavit asserting privilege is not fatal to the assertion of privilege. That said, an affidavit setting out the claim of privilege will need to be filed in most, if not all, cases where the production of documents is resisted on the ground of privilege under the ROC 2021. Further, failure to file an affidavit to support an assertion may “leave [him] exposed to having the matter determined only on undisputed facts or on the law”. See paras 42-44.
❗ What should the affidavit asserting privilege contain?
Pre-2021 authorities such as Skandinaviska v APB remain relevant. Practitioners should note recent cases such as Lutfi Salim bin Talib and another v British and Malayan Trustees Ltd [2024] 5 SLR 86 and Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo Investment Partnership (Ltd Partnership) v Shandong Ruyi Technology Group Co, Ltd and another [2024] SGHC 308. Ultimately, in the words of AR Wee Yen Jean “the party asserting privilege must have placed before the court sufficient facts and evidence to support its claim that the preconditions for the relevant head of privilege are met – at least on a prima facie basis”. It is good practice for the party asserting privilege to provide particulars in order for the party requesting disclosure to have a fair and meaningful opportunity to argue that the facts do not establish privilege. See paras 48-66.
❗ What weight should be given to an assertion of privilege on affidavit?
After the party asserting privilege has set out on affidavit the facts on which he wishes to rely to establish privilege, the court will generally regard this statement of facts as conclusive, and should not go behind the affidavits unless it is plain and obvious – from the documents that have been produced, that party’s affidavits or pleadings, or some other objective evidence before the court – that the requested documents are not protected from production. This is because, at this interlocutory stage of the proceedings, “the court cannot resolve a dispute as to the sufficiency of affidavits relating to production of documents based on contentious affidavits”. Having said that, a bare assertion on affidavit that the requested documents are privileged is not enough. See para 67.
❗ Should the court inspect the documents over which privilege is asserted?
The AR was of the view that there are several reasons why a court faced with a disputed claim of legal professional privilege should decline to inspect the documents over which privilege is asserted – even where inspection is requested by either or both parties, and especially in proceedings governed by the ROC 2021. See para 98.
(20) The government has announced that it is looking to strengthen action against sellers and users of non-compliant AMDs
Following a spate of high profile fires traceable to batteries in active mobility devices (AMDs), the government has announced that it is looking to strengthen action against sellers and users of non-compliant devices.
There are currently no commonly recognised international fire safety standards for AMDs, but since June 2021, devices in Singapore must meet the UL2272 and EN15194 standards.
In the past three years, 77 of the AMD-related fires in HDB estates involved such non-compliant devices.
Hopefully, a clamp down on device safety will help contain the number of home fires. Fires at HDB units may be overed by the HDB Fire Insurance Scheme, which is a compulsory insurance which flat owners with HDB loans commencing on or after 1 September 1994 must buy and renew every 5 years.
Original article - https://lnkd.in/gqrU9dDb
(21) There were a total of 587 major injuries and 43 fatalities in the workplace in 2024, according to MOM’s Workplace Safety and Health Report 2024.
Hopefully, MOM's stepping up of spot fines can reduce accident rates (and claims).
Original article - https://lnkd.in/gz2NdhcE
(22) Insurers may soon have to navigate a more complex sanctions landscape
Britain, France and Germany launched a 30-day process on August 28 to reimpose U.N. sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. The 30 days is about to expire.
The snapback could see the reintroduction of extensive sanctions such as EU in Regulation 267/2012 which contained a prohibition on providing “financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and re-insurance related to the import, purchase or transport of crude oil and petroleum products of Iranian origin or that have been imported from Iran”
[Post script. As things transpired, the snapback announced by the EU did not extend to catching the provision of insurance]
(23) Much has been written about legal AI in recent weeks following TechLawFest 2025 and Singapore Convention Week 2025. Here is a story from the UK which you may have missed.
Back in May, the Solicitors Regulation Authority approved the first ‘AI native’ law firm. The firm will use an AI-powered litigation assistant to help clients recover unpaid debts of up to £10,000 and does so by generating documents and guiding clients through the small claims court process up to trial.
In its press release announcing the approval, the SRA has that the AI model is not autonomous and will only take a step where the client has approved it. Further, the SRA has required there to be a supervision and monitoring processes in place, including having a named solicitor on the file. This is because SRA rules required named regulated solicitors to be accountable for the firm delivering high professional standards. The named solicitor will be responsible for all the system outputs and for anything that goes wrong. The SRA also stressed that all regulated law firms must also have a minimum level of insurance in place to protect clients.
On this last point, Solicitors in the UK are obliged under the Solicitors Regulation Authority Indemnity Insurance Rules to have Professional indemnity Insurance in place at all times.
(24) The Electronic Conveyancing and Other Matters Bill was introduced for First Reading in Parliament on 25 September
e-convenacing involves conducting property transactions electronically via on on-line portal rather than through traditional paper-based methods. The perceived gains are improved efficiency, transparency and security.
It will mean a learning curve for conveyancers in Singapore but hopefully it does not spark any professional negligence claims.
(25) Recent Cyber Stats from Allianz
💻 Allianz’s claim states show that in the first half of 2025, Allianz received about 300 cyber claims, roughly the same as a year earlier. But Claim severity fell by more than 50% and the frequency of large losses dropped around 30%, likely due to better monitoring.
🖥️ Ransomware remains the main cause of cyber claims, accounting for about 60% of large claim values in the first half.
‼️ Attacks have shifted toward “double extortion,” with 40% of large claims in early 2025 involving data theft as well as system encryption, up from 25% in 2024.
Reported in https://lnkd.in/gcsc2ndK
(26) Singapore court hits lawyer with personal costs order for tendering submissions with a fictitious case caused by AI error - Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul [2025] SGHC 33
Counsel, relying on drafting by a junior, allowed submissions to be tendered to court which contained an AI hallucinated case.
The court was of the view that this merited a personal costs order against the lawyer. The power to order such costs order flowing from Order 21 rule 6 of ROC 2021. The applicable test about whether to invoke the inherent power is that set out in Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew and another and other appeals [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576, namely:
(a) Whether the advocate and solicitor acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently (“Stage 1”);
(b) If so, whether the advocate and solicitor’s conduct caused the counterparty to incur unnecessary costs (“Stage 2”); and
(c) If so, whether it is in all the circumstances just to order the advocate and solicitor to compensate the counterparty for the whole or any part of the relevant costs (“Stage 3”)
For Stage 1, the court considered he standard of conduct expected of advocates and solicitors as set out in the GenAI Guide, the Practice Directions and the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
For Stage 3 the court looked at the nature/impact of the conduct, the prejudice to the counter-party and the egregiousness of the conduct. For egregiousness, the court said that it was important to consider the following:
(a) Whether the fictitious AI-generated authority was intentionally cited to mislead or deceive the court (Zhang v Chen 2024 BCSC 285 (“Zhang”) at [31]; Byoplanet International, LLC v Peter Johansson, No 0:25-cv-60630-LEIBOWITZ 2025 WL 2091025, at 11 (SD Fla, July 17, 2025) (“Byoplanet”));
(b) Whether the advocate and solicitor had previously cited fictitious AI-generated authorities to the court (Byoplanet at 11);
(c) Whether an immediate, full and truthful explanation is given to the court and the counterparty (Ayinde (Div Court) at [24]). Specifically, whether the advocate and solicitor expeditiously informed the court that a fictitious AI-generated authority was cited and took appropriate steps, in consultation with the court, to remedy the mistake, or conversely, if he displayed a lack of candour and attempted to downplay or conceal his mistake (see Byoplanet at 11); and
(d) The impact on the underlying litigation (Ayinde (Div Court) at [24]), in particular, whether the legal proposition purportedly supported by the fictitious authority exists and could have been supported by a genuine authority.
After weighing up matters, the court ordered Claimant's counsel to pay the Defendant costs in the sum of $800
Case citation - Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and anor v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen [2025] SGHC 33.
(27) Lessons for motor insurers from Down Under
Motor insurers in Australia face similar challenges to those in Singapore.
High claims costs are being driven by higher vehicle costs, higher replacement part costs, higher labour costs, social inflation and fraud.
The Insurance Council of Australia have recommended the following reforms:
🚙 Addressing labour shortages. Nearly one in two vacancies in motor trades businesses rely on overseas workers due to chronic skills shortages, however hiring them is challenging due to red tape. Significant training investment is also needed with only 58 per cent of apprentices completing their qualifications.
🚙 Strengthen motor industry supply chains. The Motor Vehicle Information Scheme (MVIS), which requires motor manufacturers to make service and repair information available to independent repairers to curb anti-competitive behaviour, should be extended to ensure independent repairers have fair access to vital parts to promote competitive pricing and support a more equitable repair market.
🚙 Regulate accident towing and storage fees. Introduce and enforce caps on excessive towing and storage charges across all jurisdictions. Examples of this include Queensland’s proposed reforms to extend fee caps to storage and secondary tows, and the expansion of Western Australia’s new towing regulations statewide to stamp out price gouging.
🚙 Crack down on insurance fraud. Strengthen industry and law enforcement collaboration to detect and prosecute fraudulent insurance claims. Through the ICA, the industry is investing in enhanced fraud detection and urging governments to bolster anti-fraud initiatives and penalties, targeting organised fraud rings that are increasingly active.
🚙 Regulation of credit hire. Stricter oversight of credit hire companies, such as through a mandatory Code of Conduct, to establish enforceable standards around disclosure and claims practices. This would help curb inflated settlement costs and excessive litigation, ultimately relieving pressure on premiums for all policyholders.
🚙 Reform New South Wales’ written off vehicle laws. To create consistency across Australia, New South Wales regulations should be amended to align with other states, allowing repairable total-loss vehicles to be safely re-registered after undergoing stringent safety checks
See https://lnkd.in/gFeadKTn
(28) Amendments to the Building Control Regulations 2003 coming into force on 1 Oct
🧱 new duty for every owner of a building to ensure that the external surface of the building is painted so as to prevent structural damage to the wall, at intervals of not more than 7 years or such longer interval as the Commissioner of Building Control, in any particular case, may allow in writing.
🧱 new rule that if a boundary gate or boundary fence is in a state that it will collapse or be likely to collapse, the owner or owners of the boundary gate or boundary fence must ensure that it is repaired without delay
such regulations can inform tortious duty of care
ILAS Committee