§

Latest articles

Singapore

Techking Enterprise Ltd and Another v JFE Consolidators Pte Ltd and Another [2005] SGHC 70

A sub-bailee is liable for the loss of goods if it fails to discharge its duty of care, and the burden of proof rests on the sub-bailee to show it discharged that duty.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Law Society of Singapore v Tay Soo Wan [2005] SGHC 7

An advocate and solicitor convicted of criminal breach of trust involving dishonesty will be struck off the roll as a matter of course to protect the public and preserve the good name of the legal profession.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Tung Hui Mannequin Industries v Tenet Insurance Co Ltd and Others [2005] SGHC 69

Case Details * Citation: [2005] SGHC 69 * Case Number: Suit 677/2004, RA 335/2004, 336/2004 * Decision Date: 15 April 2005 * Court: High Court of Singapore * Coram: Judith Prakash J * Judgment Delivered

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Bank of China v Yong Tze Enterprise (Pte) Ltd and Another [2005] SGHC 68

The court held that the 1996 letter was superseded by the 1999 letter, and therefore no representation existed for the purpose of estoppel by representation. Furthermore, the court found no unconscionability to justify the remedy of subrogation.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Jurong Readymix Concrete Pte Ltd v Crescendas Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tavica Design Pte Ltd) [2005] SGHC 67

The court held that the defendant's premature removal of formwork, rather than the plaintiff's supply of slow-setting concrete, was the cause of the cracks in the columns, thus breaking the chain of causation for the defendant's losses.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Shaifudin [2005] SGHC 66

The High Court has revisionary power to set aside a conviction procured on the basis of false identity, as such a conviction is fundamentally erroneous and amounts to a miscarriage of justice.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 65

A party named as consignee in a bill of lading does not automatically become the lawful holder under the Bills of Lading Act if the bill was not delivered by the shipper or on its behalf, particularly where an intermediary negotiation bank is involved without proper indorsement.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Kok Weng Shang Bernard [2005] SGHC 64

The court held that life imprisonment is appropriate for a young offender suffering from schizophrenia where the offence is grave, the offender is of unstable character likely to commit such an offence in the future, and the consequences are specially injurious.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 63

Case Details * Citation: [2005] SGHC 63 * Case Number: MA 10/2005 * Decision Date: 05 April 2005 * Court: High Court of Singapore * Coram: V K Rajah J * Judgment Delivered By: V K Rajah

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Hoban Steven Maurice Dixon and Another v Scanlon Graeme John and Others [2005] SGHC 62

The court cannot exercise jurisdiction to grant relief under s 216(2) of the Companies Act unless a case of oppression or prejudicial conduct has been established.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Tan Teck Khong and Another (committee of the estate of Pang Jong Wan, mentally disordered) and Others [2005] SGHC 61

A mortgage executed under undue influence is voidable, but can be affirmed by the conduct of the party entitled to avoid it. The solicitor acting for the mortgagee and mortgagor has a duty to ensure the mortgagor is acting of their own free will, which requires a private consulta

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Teo Song Kwang (alias Teo Richard) and Another v Vijayasundram Jeyabalan [2005] SGHC 60

A co-guarantor is liable to contribute to a settlement paid by another co-guarantor even if separate guarantee documents were signed, provided they are part of the same transaction. However, claims for contribution to business losses fail if the losses are not proven.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Ong and Co Pte Ltd v Lua Soo Theng [2005] SGHC 6

The indemnity clause in the dealer's representative's letter of appointment was wide enough to cover margin account losses, and the memorandum of settlement did not compromise the plaintiff's claim for such losses.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Nagasima Electronic Engineering Pte Ltd v APH Trading Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 59

A registered design is not novel if it is identical to prior art, and features dictated solely by function or 'must fit' requirements are excluded from protection.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

SM Integrated Transware Pte Ltd v Schenker Singapore (Pte) Ltd [2005] SGHC 58

In SM Integrated Transware v Schenker Singapore, the High Court ruled a binding lease existed, ordering Schenker to pay $505,691.85 in damages. The case clarifies contract formation principles and the strict requirements for proving mitigation of loss in commercial lease disputes.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and Another [2005] SGHC 57

The Singapore court cannot grant a Mareva injunction to assist proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction where there is no pre-existing substantive cause of action in Singapore.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Tri-Oceanic Pte Ltd v Chun Cheng Fishery Enterprise Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 56

The court held that the defendant was bound by the 'as is' clause in the contract, which excluded claims regarding quality, and that the defendant failed to prove that the fish delivered did not conform to the contract.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Gan Cheng Chan v Gan Meng Hui [2005] SGHC 55

In Gan Cheng Chan v Gan Meng Hui [2005] SGHC 55, the High Court rejected claims of undue influence, ruling that the defendant affirmed the Settlement Agreement through part performance. The court held that a party cannot simultaneously claim an agreement is disadvantageous while denying legal intent

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Alfons Tanumihardja v Thio Su Mien and Others [2005] SGHC 54

A solicitor-client relationship is terminated when a client seeks independent legal advice after the solicitor declares a conflict of interest, and the solicitor is not liable for negligence if the client's loss is not caused by the solicitor's actions.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Tan Woei Jinn v Thapjang Amorthap and Another [2005] SGHC 53

The court held that when assessing loss of future earnings for a foreign worker, the multiplier should be split to reflect the period the worker is likely to remain in the host country and the period they are likely to return to their home country, with appropriate adjustments to

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Ong Bee Nah v Won Siew Wan (Yong Tian Choy, Third Party) [2005] SGHC 52

The court held that a criminal conviction is admissible in civil proceedings under s 45A of the Evidence Act as evidence of the facts constituting the offence, though not conclusive, and that there is no general duty for a driver to slow down at a junction when the traffic lights

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Lim Kok Sian Brandon v Ong Ai Geok (alias Wang Aiyu) [2005] SGHC 51

The court determined the quantum of maintenance for a former wife by considering the wife's mental health (depressive disorder), the husband's high income, and the standard of living during the marriage, while applying the factors under s 114 of the Women's Charter.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

United Overseas Bank Ltd v Ng Huat Foundations Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 50

A stay of winding-up proceedings will not be granted where the pending appeal is an exercise in legal futility and constitutes an abuse of the court's process.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Ng Sing King and Others v PSA International Pte Ltd and Others (No 2) [2005] SGHC 5

The judgment in Ng Sing King and Others v PSA International Pte Ltd and Others (No 2) [2005] SGHC 5 represents a significant judicial examination of the boundary between commercial friction in a joint venture and actionable minority oppression under Section 216 of the Companies A

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read