ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. Introduction to ‘works’ under the Copyright Act (Cap 63) For copyright to subsist in a work, it must meet the definition of ‘work’ under section 7(1) of the Copyright Act (Cap 63), which is generally defined as a ‘literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work’. While a general definition of literary works is not expressly defined within the Copyright Act, s 7, it does elaborate what dramatic works and artistic works are. As such, this Practice Note will deal with each type of work in turn. Literary works There is no general definition for literary works under the Copyright Act, and as such we turn to case law to find a general definition of what the term is. In the English case of University of London Press v University Tutorial Press, Peterson J noted that ‘literary work’ must cover work which can be ‘expressed in writing, irrespective…of the quality

Arbitration analysis: the High Court of Singapore in Haide Building Materials Co v Ship Recycling Investments Inc (Haide) refused to set aside an arbitral award and reiterated that multiple grounds of challenge do not add to the merit of the attack and are ‘seldom productive’. The applicant unsuccessfully argued that the tribunal had breached the rules of natural justice in three ways, the award was induced by fraud and the procedure adopted by the tribunal was contrary to that agreed by the parties. The court found there to be no merit in any of the grounds, upheld the award and imposed costs on the applicant, noting the recent approach of the English Court of Appeal of refusing to entertain meritless multipronged applications. Written by Dr Cameron Ford OAM SC, barrister at William Forster Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: The High Court of Singapore considered whether the court could extend time to commence arbitration when liability had not been fully admitted, and where the arbitration agreement was operative on the facts. The court held that, for the purposes of section 10(1), it must determine on a full merits basis whether the dispute falls within the arbitration agreement. The phrase ‘liability being otherwise admitted’ required a full admission of liability, leaving only quantum issues for arbitration. As significant liability issues remained disputed, including policy coverage questions, the arbitration agreement had not become operative, and the court had no power to extend time for arbitration.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court dismissed contractual and transaction at an undervalue claims brought by the liquidators of an umbrella company against two doctors who had received gross payments without PAYE or NIC deductions. The court found no employment contracts or enforceable repayment obligations and held that the doctors’ accounting to HMRC for the income removed the alleged undervalue, alternatively no restorative relief would have been appropriate under section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). The decision highlights the friction between insolvency law and tax law, particularly the risk of double recovery. Produced in partnership with Phillip Ridgway, barrister at Temple Tax Chambers.

The single Family Court replaced the previous three tiers of court structure (family proceedings court, county court, High Court) and came into effect on 22 April 2014.

UPDATE: The Single Farm Payment Scheme has been replaced in its entirety by the Basic Payment Scheme under the Common Agricultural Policy 2014–2020. This Practice Note is historic and not maintained, but as it sets out the now obsolete Single Farm Payment Scheme, is kept for information purposes only. The Single Farm Payment Scheme (Scheme) is the principal agricultural subsidy scheme within the EU Common Agricultural Policy. It replaced most previous crop and livestock payment schemes with effect from 1 January 2005. The rules which currently give effect to the Scheme are: • Council Regulation (EC) 73/2009 on establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers • Commission Regulation (EC) 1120/2009 on laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) 73/2009 • Commission Regulation (EC) 1121/2009 on laying down detailed rules for the application of the support schemes for farmers provided for in Titles IV and V of Council Regulation

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Stellantis Auto, the Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which an order for parties on the same side of a dispute to share a single joint expert may be appropriate. The Court of Appeal ultimately found that the issue of whether a single joint expert should be ordered in such a scenario was one with two dimensions: the first is the need to comply with the overriding objective (or, in the CAT, the general principles), and the second is the obligation on the court to restrict expert evidence to what is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings. While the court found that a material conflict of interest between the parties may be a factor which militated away from the use of a single joint expert, it was by no means a ‘trump card’ preventing such an order being made. Written by Emily Lodge, associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.

Series of measures aimed at boosting the EU economy and creating jobs.

CA 2006, s 1136 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying an alternative location (ie other than the company's registered office) where a company may keep records which are available for inspection. Under the Companies (Company Records) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/2006) (CR Regs), the single alternative inspection location (SAIL) of the company records to which the CR Regs apply must be (1) in the same part of the UK as the company's registered office (2) a single location for all the items referred to in CA 2006, s 1136(2) and (3) notified to Companies House as being the company's alternative inspection location. The place where the register of members is made up may be different to the SAIL.

The Home Office has issued an announcement on GOV.UK which confirms that Tech Nation has been awarded the contract to continue as the endorsing body (for the next three years) for the digital technology pathway of the Global Talent visa following an open procurement process. An amended process, effective from 4 August 2025, will introduce an expanded stage 1 endorsement form on GOV.UK, designed to capture all necessary information in a single application. As such the application form on the Tech Nation website will no longer be required.  Note that applications submitted before 11.59pm on 3 August 2024 will still require the submission of both forms.  The endorsement criteria remains unchanged, although the Home Office and Tech Nation retain the right to modify qualifying criteria in future.

The single higher rate of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) for high-value residential property (initially a 15% rate) was introduced as part of a package of measures aimed at making it less attractive to hold high-value UK residential property indirectly, eg through a company, in order to avoid or minimise taxes such as SDLT on a subsequent disposal of the property. The other measures included in the anti-avoidance package relating to high-value UK residential property included: • the annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED) which applies to high-value UK residential property owned on, or acquired after 1 April 2013, by non-natural persons (NNPs) (for further details, see Practice Note: Annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED)—the basics), and • a capital gains tax (CGT) charge on sales of high-value UK residential property by NNPs (for further details, see Practice Note: Capital gains tax charge on ATED-related gains [Archived]) (this charge was abolished with effect from 6 April 2019 when non-UK residents became subject to CGT on their gains arising from UK immovable property,

An expert instructed by both parties to report on an issue in the proceedings which is not agreed.