§

Latest articles

Singapore

Tan Chui Lian v Neo Liew Eng [2006] SGHC 203

Section 51(6) of the Housing and Development Act does not prohibit resulting or constructive trusts where the parties are already eligible owners of the HDB flat; it only prohibits trusts that circumvent eligibility criteria. Equity will adjust the beneficial interests of co-owne

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Chee Soon Juan v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 202

The High Court dismissed a criminal motion for a mistrial as an abuse of process, holding that the applicant should instead pursue the established appeal process after the trial is completed.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Yap Keng Ho v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 201

The High Court's revisionary jurisdiction should not be invoked to interrupt a trial for every adverse ruling made by a trial judge, as the proper recourse is to reserve objections for an appeal after the final decision.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Parkway Hospitals Singapore Pte Ltd (trading as Mount Elizabeth Hospital) and Another v Sandar Aung [2006] SGHC 200

The court held that the defendant was liable for all hospital charges incurred under the Agreement, as the Agreement was unambiguous and the Estimate provided was not a contract that limited liability. The court also held that the plaintiffs could not recover doctors' fees as the

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Jet Holding Ltd and Others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Another [2006] SGHC 20

The court held that a successful party may be deprived of full costs if they have been indiscriminate in their litigation conduct, such as by filing voluminous irrelevant documents or failing to be selective in the points taken, thereby unnecessarily increasing the costs of proce

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Teo Song Kwang (alias Richard) v Gnau Lye Chan and Another [2006] SGHC 2

A beneficiary of an unadministered estate has only an equitable interest to compel proper administration, and any assignment of such interest must be in writing under s 7(2) of the Civil Law Act.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

NE v Comptroller of Income Tax [2006] SGHC 199

The court held that the appellant was precluded from appealing the Board's decision because the Board's finding that there was insufficient evidence of the purpose of the expenditure was a question of fact.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

NI v NJ [2006] SGHC 198

The court held that maintenance and division of assets must be assessed holistically, taking into account the new realities of a failed marriage, including the earning capacity of the parties and the need to provide for children.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

BF v BG [2006] SGHC 197

The judgment in BF v BG [2006] SGHC 197 represents a comprehensive appellate review of ancillary matters following the dissolution of a marriage between two Australian nationals domiciled in Singapore. The case is particularly significant for its detailed examination of the court

Sushant Shukla· ·18 min read
Singapore

Shih Shin Wang-Liu and Another v Tsai Pei Lun Betty alias Tsai Pei Loon and Another [2006] SGHC 196

The court held that moneys transferred by a parent to an adult child for investment purposes are held on a resulting trust for the parent, as the presumption of advancement does not apply to an adult child who is financially self-supporting.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak dan Gas Bumi Negara [2006] SGHC 195

Where proceedings are withdrawn or discontinued, the court will exercise its discretion on costs based on the reasons for withdrawal, the reasonableness of the parties' conduct, and whether the withdrawal is indicative of an acknowledgement of defeat.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni [2006] SGHC 194

In Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni [2006] SGHC 194, the High Court quashed a Disciplinary Committee's findings, ruling that the committee failed to maintain impartiality and 'descended into the arena,' thereby violating the rules of natural justice and creating a reasonable suspicion of bias.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

HSBC (Malaysia) Trustee Bhd and Others v Soon Cheong Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 193

A director's power to refuse to register a share transfer is not unfettered but the court will not interfere if the director's reasons are legitimate and based on proper principles.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Ting Sing Ning (alias Malcolm Ding) v Ting Chek Swee (alias Ting Chik Sui) and Others [2006] SGHC 192

The plaintiff failed to establish locus standi to bring a derivative action as he did not prove that the majority shareholders were using their influence to prevent the company from taking action, and he failed to exhaust internal company remedies.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik [2006] SGHC 191

The court held that in cases of sexual offences between former lovers, the determination of consent is a complex exercise requiring careful scrutiny of the evidence, and that the Prosecution must prove the voluntary nature of statements beyond reasonable doubt.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Summit Co (S) Pte Ltd v Pacific Biosciences Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 190

The court held that a winding up petition under s 254(1)(i) of the Companies Act cannot be used by a minority shareholder to exit a company at will, and that the breakdown in relationship must be grounded in the conduct of the company's business rather than a mere inability to ag

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Firstlink Energy Pte Ltd v Creanovate Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 19

Service of a document via the EFS File-n-Serve feature is deemed effected at the time the first part of the transmission is received by the network service provider (the 'first byte rule'), regardless of when the registry accepts the document or when the recipient actually receiv

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Fairmount Development Pte Ltd v Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 189

An arbitral award may be set aside for breach of natural justice if the arbitrator decides a case on a basis that was not raised by the parties and on which the parties were not given an opportunity to be heard.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

The "Vasiliy Golovnin" [2006] SGHC 188

A judge hearing an appeal from an assistant registrar has the discretion to admit fresh evidence, but will not do so if the evidence is unnecessary or redundant.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Paillart Philippe Marcel Etienne and Another v Eban Stuart Ashley and Another [2006] SGHC 187

A party is entitled to declaratory relief even if a default judgment has been obtained against a co-defendant, provided there is a real controversy and the declaration serves a purpose.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Law Society of Singapore v Vardan Vasantha Lakshmi [2006] SGHC 185

In Law Society of Singapore v Vardan Vasantha Lakshmi [2006] SGHC 185, the Court suspended a solicitor for two years for failing to manage conflicts of interest and neglecting client duties. The case highlights that while dishonesty warrants striking off, professional indifference justifies suspensi

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Lim Li Ling v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 184

Section 5(a) of the Common Gaming Houses Act imposes a mandatory term of imprisonment but leaves the imposition of a fine to the court's discretion, provided that if a fine is imposed, it must be between $20,000 and $200,000.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

QB Net Co Ltd v Earnson Management (S) Pte Ltd and Others [2006] SGHC 183

The plaintiff failed to establish the essential element of goodwill for the tort of inverse passing off, and failed to prove that the information in question was confidential or that there was a conspiracy to injure.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Archer Daniels Midland Co and Others [2006] SGHC 182

In an action for deceit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false representation fraudulently (knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly) and that the plaintiff was induced by that representation to act to its detriment, suffering loss as a direct cons

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read