Partnership Announcement – Suang Wijaya

New Partner Appointment of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP

1. Introduction

Eugene Thuraisingam LLP is pleased to announce the appointment of Suang Wijaya as a Partner of the firm effective 8 September 2018!

2. Suang’s background

Suang joined the firm as a trainee, and was called to the Bar in August 2015. Prior to this, Suang studied law at National University of Singapore’s Faculty of Law and obtained a prestigious First Class Honours.

In the past 3 years with the firm, Suang has made significant contributions to the firm and its clients. He has amassed considerable experience arguing cases in the High Court and the State Courts which involve complex and novel commercial, criminal and public interest issues. Despite his relative youth, Suang has acted as lead counsel in various High Court proceedings, including a case involving properties in which a favourable outcome was obtained.

Suang is also a subject matter specialist in the field of public law, having been involved since his time as an undergraduate with the National University of Singapore in cases involving administrative and constitutional law.

Some of the prominent reported cases Suang has had conduct of include:

Civil and commercial disputes 

UJF v UJG [2018] SGHCF 1: Represented the wife in the division of approximately SGD 11 million of matrimonial assets. This was an unusual case in which a long period of cohabitation was followed by a short marriage, and parties’ property interests were described as “entangled”.

UFM v UFN [2017] SGHCF 22: Represented an Indonesian divorcee in a successful application for permission to commence proceedings for division of Singapore matrimonial property, consequential upon a divorce decreed in Indonesia. The High Court judge accepted our argument on a novel point of interpretation of Chapter 4A of the Women’s Charter, which was that, in the appropriate circumstances, there was no need for an applicant seeking relied under Chapter 4A of the Women’s Charter to have first exhausted her remedies in the foreign jurisdiction in which the divorce was obtained.

Rohini d/o Balasubramaniam v HSR International Realtors Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 37: Represented an estate agency in defending tort claims brought by a former customer in relation to a fraud committed by a former representative without the estate agency’s knowledge or consent. The former customer’s claims were in vicarious liability, agency and negligence.

Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 197: Represented a former financial services director (“FSD”) in the assessment of damages stage of the FSD’s claim against a financial institution. The High Court judge assessed damages at SGD 4.026 million.

Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd [2016] 4 SLR 1124 : Represented a former financial services director (“FSD”) in a successful appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with us that the defendant, a financial institution, had been negligent in the preparation of a reference check for the FSD, and this caused a prospective employer to decide not to proceed with hiring the FSD.

Criminal and public interest litigation 

Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General [2018] SGHC 112: Represented a person who had been convicted of a drugs offence carrying the death penalty, in applying for judicial review against the decision of the Public Prosecutor not to issue the offender with a certificate of substantive assistance under Section 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. This case raises important questions of administrative law, including the constitutionality of the ouster clause under Section 33B(4), and whether if constitutional the ouster clause is nevertheless effective in excluding judicial review on grounds other than bad faith, malice or unconstitutionality.

Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 741: Represented an accused who had been convicted by the Court of Appeal in 2015 of drug trafficking, in successfully applying to the Court of Appeal to re-open its 2015 decision to convict the accused. This was the first time in Singapore’s legal history that the Court of Appeal had exercised its inherent power to review a concluded criminal appeal.

Liew Zheng Yang v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGHC 157: Represented the appellant in a successful appeal against his conviction by the District Court of an alleged conspiracy to traffic drugs to himself. This case involved a novel point as to whether, as a matter of law, a recipient or intended recipient of controlled drugs can be liable for abetment by engaging in a conspiracy with the supplier to traffic in the drugs, where the drugs were intended solely for the recipient’s or intended recipient’s own consumption.

Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal [2017] 1 SLR 373: Represented the website, The Online Citizen, in successfully defending proceedings brought by the Government in the District Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal. This case involved a question of statutory interpretation, on whether the Government could be said to be a “person” under Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act.

Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v Public Prosecutor and other matters [2017] 1 SLR 173: Represented four persons who had been convicted of drugs offences carrying the death penalty, in challenging the constitutionality of Section 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. This case raised important questions relating to separation of powers, the fundamental rules of natural justice, the doctrine of severability in constitutional law, and remedies for breaches of the Constitution.

3. Conclusion

We are excited to welcome Suang as the firm’s newest partner, and look forward to his continued commitment to providing our clients with quality legal representation!