22 November 2018

Allen & Gledhill Partners Tay Yong Seng and Margaret Chew contributed this article to Business Law International, published by the International Bar Association. This article discusses the case of Ochroid Trading v Chua Siok Lui [2018] 1 SLR 363 where the five-member Singapore Court of Appeal decided not to adopt the range of factors test set out by the UK Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2017] AC 467 to displace the traditional rule that no recovery is permitted under a prohibited contract. This is not to say that judicial flexibility in awarding recovery in appropriate circumstances would be compromised. The court in Ochroid Trading v Chua continued to consider recovery in contracts that involve the commission of a legal wrong (but are not prohibited contracts per se) as well as recovery on a restitutionary basis, which involves taking into account a range of factors (including stultification). 

This article was first published in Business Law International, Vol 19 No 3, September 2018, and is reproduced by kind permission of the International Bar Association, London, UK. © International Bar Association.

To read the article, please click here.