Latest articles
Aspinden Holdings Ltd v Chief Assessor and Comptroller of Property Tax [2006] SGHC 72
The Chief Assessor has the power to amalgamate strata lots into a single property tax account for valuation purposes if they are physically and functionally used as an integral unit, consistent with the rebus sic stantibus principle.
GYC Financial Planning Pte Ltd and Another v Prudential Assurance Company Singapore (Pte) Ltd [2006] SGHC 71
The court held that the termination of the Corporate Manager Agreement was valid as the defendant gave sufficient notice and had good reason due to the Financial Advisers Act prohibiting corporate entities from acting as representatives of exempt financial advisers. Furthermore,
Rickshaw Investments Ltd and Another v Nicolai Baron Von Uexkull [2006] SGHC 70
The court held that the jurisdiction clause in the agreement did not confer exclusive jurisdiction on German courts, but stayed the Singapore action on the basis that Germany was the more appropriate forum.
Dextra Asia Co Ltd and Another v Mariwu Industrial Co (S) Pte Ltd and Another Suit [2006] SGHC 7
A patent for a manufacturing process involving cold forging of rebars is valid and inventive where it overcomes known technical limitations and achieves a significant advance in the industry.
Hu Su Chu v Wee Ek Chian and Another [2006] SGHC 69
In Hu Su Chu v Wee Ek Chian and Another, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Tort — Nuisance.
Law Society of Singapore v Sivakolunthu Thirunavukarasu [2006] SGHC 68
An advocate and solicitor who engages in forgery and fraud to mortgage clients' property for personal benefit and misapplies clients' monies will be struck off the roll.
Public Prosecutor v MX [2006] SGHC 67
The court held that in cases of multiple sexual offences against children, the totality principle requires consecutive sentencing to reflect the gravity of the offences and the number of victims.
Smart Modular Technologies Sdn Bhd and Another v Federal Express Services (M) Sdn Bhd and Another [2006] SGHC 66
The Singapore High Court dismissed claims against Federal Express, ruling that a courier is not an insurer of goods. The court found the hijacking was unforeseeable and the defendant's security measures met reasonable industry standards, rejecting allegations of employee collusion.
Sumpiles Investments Pte Ltd v AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 65
In Sumpiles Investments v AXA Insurance [2006] SGHC 65, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, ruling that the loss did not fall under the insured perils of the Institute Time Clauses. The court clarified that the burden of proof for due diligence provisos rests with the insurer.
Public Prosecutor v G Krishnasamy Naidu [2006] SGHC 64
The court rejected the defence of diminished responsibility, finding that while the accused suffered from morbid jealousy, it did not substantially impair his mental responsibility for the act of killing.
Ho Seek Yueng Novel and Another v J & V Development Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 63
In Ho Seek Yueng Novel v J & V Development Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 63, the High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim and upheld the defendant's counterclaim. The court ruled that the plaintiffs' attempt to introduce new evidence post-hearing constituted an abuse of process.
Yongnam Engineering & Constructions (Pte) Ltd and Another v Yeo Wee Kiong and Others [2006] SGHC 62
The court held that solicitors are not negligent for failing to warn a client of the risks of a transaction where the client was an experienced businessman who had been advised of the existence of a paramount mortgage and the necessity of its discharge, and where the client chose
Ang Swee Koon v Pang Tim Fook Paul [2006] SGHC 61
The court held that for the purposes of s 21(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, the 'amount in dispute in the appeal' is the correct test to determine whether leave to appeal is required.
Public Prosecutor v Chee Cheong Hin Constance [2006] SGHC 60
The court held that while the Hodgson criteria for life imprisonment were satisfied, a term of 10 years' imprisonment was appropriate given the accused's mental disorder and the availability of a support mechanism for her rehabilitation.
Yap Jeffery Henry v Seow Timothy and Others [2006] SGHC 6
The court found that the directors of the Company conspired to defraud the plaintiff by liquidating the Company to avoid paying a judgment debt and by transferring assets to a new entity while concealing proceeds in a secret bank account.
Ang Kin Chiew v Ang Boon Chye (trading as All Family Food Court and others) [2006] SGHC 59
The court held that the plaintiff was a nominee for his father (the eleventh defendant) in the various partnerships and had no real interest in them, and thus his claims were dismissed.
Caterpillar Inc v Ong Eng Peng (formerly trading as Catplus International) [2006] SGHC 58
The court held that the defendant's use of the mark 'CATPLUS' in relation to construction equipment infringed the plaintiff's registered 'CAT' trade marks and constituted passing off, as there was a likelihood of confusion among the public.
Abul Khabir Uddin Tohron Nisa v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 57
The court held that bail should be reduced when the accused has no prior convictions and has already spent time in remand, balancing the dual purposes of bail (presumption of innocence and preventing absconding).
Wong Suit Kam v Tan Beng Wah Benny [2006] SGHC 56
In Wong Suit Kam v Tan Beng Wah Benny [2006] SGHC 56, the High Court ordered a 55:45 division of matrimonial assets in favor of the husband and awarded the wife $144,000 in lump sum maintenance, adjusted for property transfer offsets between the parties.
Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v Clough Engineering Ltd and Another [2006] SGHC 55
A party is bound by its pleadings and a case must be decided on the issues raised on the record.
Attorney-General v Chee Soon Juan [2006] SGHC 54
In Attorney-General v Chee Soon Juan [2006], the court found the respondent in contempt for scandalising the judiciary. Due to a lack of contrition, he was sentenced to a $6,000 fine and one day's imprisonment, which increased to eight days total following his refusal to pay the fine.
Van Der Horst Engineering Pte Ltd v Rotol Singapore Ltd [2006] SGHC 53
A party may recover wasted pre-contractual expenditure as damages for breach of contract if such expenditure was within the reasonable contemplation of the parties as likely to be wasted if the contract was broken.
Public Prosecutor v Rohana [2006] SGHC 52
The court held that life imprisonment was not appropriate for a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder where the actions were not premeditated, despite the presence of aggravating factors.
Rothmans of Pall Mall Limited v Maycolson International Ltd [2006] SGHC 51
Bad faith in trade mark registration is a distinct issue from confusing similarity, and an applicant has a positive duty to investigate the bona fides of a mark if circumstances suggest impropriety.