Latest articles
PT ADIDAYA ENERGY MANDIRI v MS FIRST CAPITAL INSURANCE LIMITED
covered subject to additional terms if required to be agreed”. The Insured Value was US$4,700,000 and the General Conditions included a waiver of rights of subjugation against any subsidiary, affiliated or interrelated company of the Assured as well as a deferred premium clause which referred to
BACHMEER CAPITAL LIMITED v ONG CHIH CHING & 7 Ors
that the witness in California could give relevant evidence, that the plaintiffs had no control over the witness and could only rely on his willingness to help them, and that the plaintiffs had made the necessary attempts to secure the witnesses presence in Singapore for the purpose of the trial
CKG v CKH
] — [Recourse against award] — [Setting aside] — [Remission] Version No 2: 23 Jul 2021 (14:26 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 COURT’S APPROACH TO AN APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE AN AWARD ................
CES v International Air Transport Association
the learned Arbitrator (“the Tribunal”) held that he has jurisdiction to hear the claim.3 Being dissatisfied, by an Originating Summons filed on 17 June 2019, CES applied to the Singapore High Court, pursuant to s 10 of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) (“IAA”) read with A
HAI JIAO 1306 LIMITED v YAW CHEE SIEW
SUMMARY CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS POST TERMINATION OF EACH OF THE BBCS.....................................................................................................68 CLAIM 1: BREACHES OF THE BEST ENDEAVOURS OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST AND SECOND LETTERS OF SUPPORT ......................
THE STAR ENTERTAINMENT QLD LIMITED v WONG YEW CHOY
THE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION AND THE STRIKE- OUT APPLICATION............................................................................................7 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................27 Version No 1: 27 Oct 2
CMJ & Anor v CML & Anor
Tribunal”) dismissed all of CMJ’s claims but upheld CML’s counterclaim to a limited extent and awarded damages in respect of those breaches. 6 CMJ seek to set aside the Award on the ground that there were breaches of natural justice in that they were not given a fair opportunity to present their
CMC v CMD
rea Co, Ltd … Defendant JUDGMENT [Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside] Version No 1: 27 May 2022 (14:00 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND ...............
GOKUL PATNAIK v NINE RIVERS CAPITAL LIMITED
by the Promoter(s) to offer the same to the Third Party purchaser, provided that the securities of the Promoter(s) that are dragged along should be sold to any Third Party purchaser on the same terms and conditions as those of the Investor (“Drag Along Right”). 4 Gokul’s 1st Affidavit at pp 135
ROLL SG PTE. LTD. v CONG TY CO PHAN VAN TAI LIEN HIEP HUY HOANG
… Defendant JUDGMENT [Contract — Breach — Rental agreement] [Contract — Remedies — Damages] Version No 1: 25 Apr 2023 (14:46 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND .................................
BNP PARIBAS SA v JACOB AGAM & Anor
on the facts, that factors (a) and (b) indicated some connection of the action with Singapore in a procedural or administrative sense but were not “substantial” and factors (c) to (e) were, at best, peripheral to the action (at [16]). Rather, the Court in Teras held that what was critical was tha
CPIT INVESTMENTS LIMITED v QILIN WORLD CAPITAL LIMITED & Anor
held on trust by Qilin as the proceeds of the sale of the Pledged Shares (at [300(a)]). I also ordered an account be taken of the profits made by Qilin in respect of that sum held on trust (at [300(b)]). Background 4 Pursuant to the terms of a consent order dated 12 February 2016 and a solicitor
CUG & 3 Ors v CUH
SUMMARY OF THE RELEVANT BACKGROUND.................................3 THE PARTIES...................................................................................................3 THE JV PROJECT .............................................................................................4 ENGAGEMEN
TWARIT CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & Anor v GPE (INDIA) LTD & 2 Ors
by the relevant defendant, for a total price in the three SPAs of INR200,00,00,000.10 The plaintiffs were to purchase the shares in 14 tranches on various dates from 30 September 2015 to 30 June 2018.11 10 Secondly, a so-called letter agreement (“the First Letter Agreement”) was entered into betw
BXS v BXT
JUDGMENT [Civil Procedure] — [Costs] Version No 1: 27 Oct 2020 (22:41 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................
JUDAH VALUE ACTIVIST FUND v OPEN FAITH INVESTMENT LIMITED
SUMMARY OF THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE............................................................65 SUMMARY OF THE DEFENDANT’S CASE ........................................................68 Remoteness...............................................................................................69 Causati
LAO HOLDINGS N.V. v THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
60% of the shares in PV, while GOL and ST held 20% each. After the monopoly rights were stripped, GOL then ordered PV to return a land concession in December 2008, and then terminated the PV PDA in April 2010. This related to Paksong Vegas. (b) In March 2011, GOL ordered Paksan Club to be shut
CPU & 2 Ors v CPX
SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS’ CASE AS TO RELEVANT BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................6 THE PRECEDING TRANSACTIONS.....................................................................6 THE SETTLEMENT CONTRACT AND SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT
DYSTAR GLOBAL HOLDINGS (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. v KIRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED & 4 Ors
done at Kiri’s request and, as this court held in the Judgment, on the condition that Kiri agreed (as it had done) to bear the costs of the audit. By its decision communicated to the parties on 19 July 2018, this court ordered statutory interest of 5.33% to run on the €1.7 million and S$443,813 f
HE & SF Properties LP v RISING DRAGON SINGAPORE PTE. LTD. & Anor
Eric Alfred Schaer … Defendants And Rising Dragon Singapore Pte Ltd … Plaintiff in Counterclaim And HE & SF Properties LP … Defendant in Counterclaim Version No 1: 27 Oct 2020 (22:41 hrs) JUDGMENT [Trusts] — [Quistclose trusts] [Restitution] — [Unjust enrichment] — [Failure of basis] [Contract] —
B2C2 LTD v QUOINE PTE. LTD.
but, for the reasons given in that judgment at [254]–[257], I held that B2C2 was not entitled to an order for specific performance. Its remedy lay only in damages. The Main Judgment therefore dealt solely with liability and not with any issue relating to the assessment of loss which had been the
MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD v BARCLAYS BANK PLC
ender’s Reference No: PET164502181) dated 30 June 2017 sent by Barclays Bank PLC to Malayan Banking Berhad Between Malayan Banking Berhad … Plaintiff And Barclays Bank PLC … Defendant JUDGMENT [Banking] — [Electronic banking] — [Electronic funds transfer] [Contract] — [Implied contracts] [Contract]
BYL & Anor v BYN
rbitration] — [Costs] Version No 1: 27 Oct 2020 (22:41 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................4 CO
AROVIN LTD & Anor v HADIRAN SRIDJAJA
iran Sridjaja … Defendant JUDGMENT [Civil Procedure] — [Pleadings] — [Further and better particulars] Version No 1: 27 Oct 2020 (22:41 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 THE LAW..........................