Testimonials

In CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching [2010] 2 SLR 386 (https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2010_SGCA_3), Josephine represented a medical company suing a doctor for breaching a contractual clause restricting him from engaging in certain conduct for a period of 3 years. The doctor challenged the enforceability of the clause on the ground that it was in restraint of trade. The Court of Appeal, in finding in favour of Josephine's client, gave considerable weight to Josephine extracting 2 vital concessions from the doctor in her cross-examination; first, that "35% of the revenue generating patients were what he called "diehards", meaning patients who would always choose him as their doctor rather than any other doctor if he was available to them" and, second, that the period of restraint of three years was proposed by the doctor himself who also admitted that he was in a stronger bargaining position. These concessions amply demonstrated the reasonableness of the clause and the court upheld its validity.

In SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd [2016] 1 SLR 1471 (https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2015_SGCA_71), Josephine was instructed to, and appeared, as Counsel in the Court of Appeal for a client whose claim for a debt owed to it had been dismissed by the High Court below. The main thrust of her argument was that the High Court Judge had erred in placing the burden on her client (as creditor) to prove that the debt had not been discharged. The Court of Appeal agreed with her legal analysis and allowed her client's appeal in total, remarking in its judgment as follows:

[33] ...Indeed, as counsel for the Appellant argues, the law is also clear that where there are several distinct debts owing by a debtor to a creditor, it is the debtor who has, in the first place, the right to appropriate a payment to any debt so as to discharge it at the time of payment (see Halsbury's Laws of Singapore vol 12 (LexisNexis, 2014 Reissue) at para 140.756, citing the House of Lords' decision in Cory Brothers and Company, Limited v The Owners of the Turkish Steamship "Mecca", The "Mecca" [1897] AC 286; see also Chitty on Contracts vol 1 (H G Beale gen ed) (Sweet & Maxwell, 31st Ed, 2012) at para 21-060). Viewed in this light, the Respondent's Defence may be understood as being premised on the assertion that it had appropriated the payments which it made to the Appellant in a certain way (ie, to discharge the three invoices specifically). As a matter of principle, therefore, we do not see any unfairness at all in requiring the Respondent to prove exactly what it asserts...

In WGE v WGF [2023] SGHCF 26 (https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHCF_26), Josephine represented the wife in an appeal against the lower court's decision to divide the assets between the spouses. One of Josephine's points was that the District Judge had erred in valuing the shares of a company belonging to the husband in not giving sufficient weight to the latest financial statements of the company. The learned Mavis Chionh J. explicitly recognised that these financial statements had only been made available through Josephine's efforts, agreed with Josephine's submission on the insufficient weight given, and ordered a further valuation of the company. The end-result was that Josephine's client's share of the matrimonial assets was increased by 30% and her net award improved by more than 50%:

[56] With respect therefore, the DJ was wrong to have considered neither the FY 2021 financial statements, nor any expert reports that had considered the FY 2021 financial statements. In my view, a fair and accurate estimation of the value of the MS shares would be possible only if the FY 2021 financial statements were also taken into consideration. I therefore gave directions for the tendering of further expert reports from the two experts and further submissions from counsel on the MS Shares Issue.