§

Latest articles

Singapore

Progen Engineering Pte Ltd v Chua Aik Kia (trading as Uni Sanitary Electrical Construction) [2006] SGHC 159

The court held that an error of law or fact does not constitute misconduct under s 17(2) of the Arbitration Act, and that the court will not interfere with an arbitrator's findings of fact on an application for leave to appeal under s 28.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Mohamad Iskandar bin Basri v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 158

In Mohamad Iskandar bin Basri v PP [2006] SGHC 158, the High Court reduced the appellant's custodial sentence, ruling that a firefighter's emergency duty is a relevant mitigating factor in rash driving cases, while upholding the principle that emergencies do not excuse reckless conduct.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Tee Kok Boon v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 157

The High Court does not have revisionary or supervisory jurisdiction over a decision of a subordinate court that has already been upheld on appeal by the High Court, nor does one High Court have revisionary jurisdiction over another.

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Singapore

Teng Yeow Fatt (as executor of the estate of Teng Mong Fong, deceased) v Teng Siew Kee [2006] SGHC 156

The court held that the sums in question were validly gifted by the deceased to his daughters during his lifetime and did not form part of his estate.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 155

Public interest is not an autonomous sentencing principle but an expression of conventional sentencing objectives like deterrence and retribution. A guilty plea is a mitigating factor primarily when it indicates genuine remorse.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

PT Muliakeramik Indahraya TBK v Nam Huat Tiling & Panelling Co Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 154

The court held that the overlap between a defence and a counterclaim is a factor to be considered in the exercise of discretion for security for costs, but it is not a decisive or fatal factor.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Chee Siok Chin and Another v Attorney-General [2006] SGHC 153

The court held that the 1991 amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court, which removed the exclusion of defamation and fraud cases from summary judgment procedures, were within the Rules Committee's powers and not unconstitutional.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Wu Yang Construction Group Ltd v Zhejiang Jinyi Group Co, Ltd and Others [2006] SGHC 152

In Wu Yang Construction Group Ltd v Zhejiang Jinyi Group Co, Ltd [2006] SGHC 152, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims of fraud and conspiracy, ruling they lacked evidentiary support. The court ordered the plaintiff to bear all legal costs, emphasizing the high standard of proof required.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Tee Soon Kay v Attorney-General [2006] SGHC 151

Public officers who voluntarily opted to convert from the pension scheme to the CPF scheme in 1973 are bound by the irrevocability of that decision and have no right to revert to the pension scheme.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Richemont International SA v Da Vinci Collections Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 150

This case clarifies that a trademark registered in block capitals protects the word in any legible font. It also confirms that multiple trademarks can coexist on a single product without affecting the validity of their registrations.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Si-Hoe Kok Chun and Another v Ramesh Ramchandani [2006] SGHC 15

The court held that the Strata Titles Board correctly identified that the Management Corporation, not an individual council member, is the proper party for applications concerning the validity of council elections or representation, and that such applications should be brought un

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Chew Tong Seng and Another v Chew Cheng Quee and Another Matter [2006] SGHC 149

The court held that the presumption of advancement was rebutted where property was registered in a child's name but the father retained beneficial interest, and that there was no estoppel by convention where there was no shared assumption of facts.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Ang Thian Soo [2006] SGHC 147

A guarantor is not automatically bound by a judgment against the principal debtor, but where the guarantor's defence is shadowy and lacks likelihood of success, the court may impose conditions such as payment into court or security for costs as a condition for leave to defend.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Lew Syn Pau and Another [2006] SGHC 146

A subsidiary's act of providing financial assistance for the acquisition of its holding company's shares does not ipso facto constitute the giving of financial assistance by the holding company itself, and the corporate veil between a parent and subsidiary is not pierced merely b

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Law Society of Singapore v Lim Cheong Peng [2006] SGHC 145

The court held that the Disciplinary Committee erred in its inferential findings and that there was insufficient evidence to prove the charges against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani [2006] SGHC 143

The court held that a solicitor's duty to act with professionalism is objective, and that an implied retainer can arise between a solicitor and beneficiaries of an estate if the solicitor's conduct objectively leads them to believe he is acting for them, even if he was initially

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Others [2006] SGHC 142

In UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co [2006] SGHC 142, the court ruled that while it can order the production of existing documents from a non-party, it will not compel the creation of new handwriting specimens unless a high threshold of reasonable necessity is met.

Sushant Shukla· ·7 min read
Singapore

Koh Mui Noi v Tan Tian Seong [2006] SGHC 141

The decision in [2006] SGHC 141 represents a meticulous judicial calibration of maintenance and asset division following the dissolution of a long-term marriage. The proceedings involved Tan Tian Seong (the Husband) and Koh Mui Noi (the Wife), who were married in 1984 and separat

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Comptroller of Income Tax v KE [2006] SGHC 140

Under the Completed Contract Method, all costs incurred up to the year of assessment are to be deducted from all sale proceeds received or receivable up to that year, and there is no justification for deferring a portion of costs to a subsequent year.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man [2006] SGHC 14

A consent unless order must be clear and unambiguous, and its existence must be ascertained on an objective basis. In the absence of clear evidence of a binding agreement, the court will not treat an order as a consent unless order.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG [2006] SGHC 139

The court held that a statutory demand is not defective for failing to mention a pending leave application, as an appeal or leave application does not operate as a stay of execution.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Chng Yew Chin v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 138

Judicial mercy may be exercised in exceptional cases where an offender suffers from a terminal illness, requiring a holistic assessment of the offender's medical condition and the public interest.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Richland Logistics Services Pte Ltd v Biforst Singapore Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 137

The court has jurisdiction to grant pre-action interrogatories even if the underlying dispute is subject to an arbitration clause, as the arbitration clause does not oust the court's jurisdiction to order such discovery.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Hoban Steven Maurice Dixon and Another v Scanlon Graeme John and Others [2006] SGHC 136

The court held that it does not have an unfettered discretion to re-examine circumstances leading to disputes when parties have entered into a liability agreement to resolve those issues, and that the proviso in the court's directions was not intended to permit re-litigation of s

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read