§

Latest articles

Singapore

Petrie Christopher Harrisson v Jones Alan and Others [2005] SGHC 49

The court held that the voting procedure at the Club's SGM, which disenfranchised members who voted against the Master Plan from voting on expenditure options, was invalid as it violated the Club's rules and the members' contractual right to vote.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Skading Anne v Yeo Kian Seng [2005] SGHC 48

In Skading Anne v Yeo Kian Seng [2005] SGHC 48, the High Court ruled that transferring proceedings from the Magistrate’s Court to the District Court is a discretionary power, not an automatic right, requiring valid justification and consideration of potential prejudice to the defendant.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Yeo Eng Siang v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 47

An appellate court may intervene in findings of fact if the trial judge's logic is flawed or if the conviction is based on unsafe, sole witness testimony that is riddled with contradictions.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Stahltec Metallhandels GmbH v Chuan Ann Metals Pte Ltd and Others [2005] SGHC 46

In Stahltec Metallhandels GmbH v Chuan Ann Metals [2005] SGHC 46, the High Court upheld a retention of title claim for identified goods but rejected claims for conversion against receivers and storage charges, citing the plaintiff's failure to mitigate losses via interim sale orders.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Teo Chee Seng [2005] SGHC 45

In cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304(b) of the Penal Code, the court must determine the sentence based on the nature and circumstances of the injury, with a mid-range of four to seven years imprisonment being appropriate for cases involving frustratio

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

ABC Supermarket Pte Ltd v Kosma Holdings Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 44

In ABC Supermarket v Kosma Holdings, the High Court awarded $45,000 for additional operational losses despite the appellant failing to prove loss of profits. The court applied a broad-brush approach to damages when precise quantification was impossible due to the business's nature.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Standard Chartered Bank v Neocorp International Ltd [2005] SGHC 43

A conclusive evidence clause in a guarantee does not preclude the court from reviewing the legal basis of a claim, as the clause is a matter of contractual interpretation and does not confer an absolute right to determine the justiciability of a claim.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

TSM Development Pte Ltd v Leonard Stephanie Celine nee Pereira [2005] SGHC 42

Adverse possession of land under the common law system that crystallised before the land was converted to the Land Titles Act system remains valid and is not defeated by the subsequent registration of the land.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Re Estate of Chong Siew Kum, deceased [2005] SGHC 41

The presumption of advancement applies to transfers of property from a mother to her children, and the plaintiff failed to rebut this presumption.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd (formerly known as Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd) [2005] SGHC 40

The court held that there was no double insurance because the plaintiff's and defendant's policies covered different risks and subject matters, and that the parol evidence rule (s 94 Evidence Act) did not apply to the facts as the parties were strangers to each other's contracts.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Lassiter Ann Masters (suing as the widow and dependant of Lassiter Henry Adolphus, deceased) v To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette) (No 2) [2005] SGHC 4

A claim for loss of inheritance is not maintainable in a dependency claim in Singapore following the 1987 amendments to the Civil Law Act.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Leow Chin Hua v Ng Poh Buan [2005] SGHC 39

A party who conducts their own investigation and does not rely on a misrepresentation cannot claim to have been induced by it.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Tan Chin Seng and Others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (No 2) [2005] SGHC 38

The court held that while the plaintiffs failed to prove pecuniary loss through diminution in membership value, they were entitled to general damages for loss of amenity and enjoyment under the Ruxley principle for breach of contract.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Chan Emily v Kang Hock Chai Joachim [2005] SGHC 37

In Chan Emily v Kang Hock Chai Joachim [2005] SGHC 37, the High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, rejecting the defendant's uncorroborated claims regarding property transfers. The court emphasized the necessity of calling material witnesses to support defenses involving trust or gift.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Jagir Singh Touwana v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 36

An appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or clearly reached against the weight of evidence, especially where findings hinge on the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Ong Beng Leong v Public Prosecutor (No 2) [2005] SGHC 35

The High Court has no jurisdiction to grant an extension of time for filing a criminal reference under s 60(2) of the SCJA, as that power lies with the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, a stay of sentence pending a criminal reference will only be granted if the applicant demonstrates

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Soon Li Heng Civil Engineering Pte Ltd v Woon Contractors Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 34

A sub-contractor is entitled to payment for work done under a lump sum contract where the work has been completed to the satisfaction of the employer, even if the main contractor alleges breaches of contract that are not substantiated.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd v Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd [2005] SGHC 33

The High Court granted leave to appeal on a question of law regarding sub-contractor objections to architect instructions. It set aside an arbitrator's award for procedural misconduct and remitted claims concerning replaced glass panels for further determination.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Chu Wai Kiu v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 32

The court held that imported goods subject to GST are treated as dutiable goods for the purposes of the Customs Act, and failure to declare such goods constitutes an offence under s 128(1)(f) of the Customs Act.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Kensteel Engineering Pte Ltd v OSV Engineering Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 31

In Kensteel Engineering v OSV Engineering [2005] SGHC 31, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, ruling that a party cannot unilaterally redesign equipment and charge the defendant for improvements. The defendant's counterclaim was allowed, subject to expert assessment of specific defects.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

AD v AE (minors: custody, care, control and access) [2005] SGHC 30

The court held that under s 92 of the Women's Charter, the court has jurisdiction to determine custody of children of the marriage regardless of biological paternity, rendering the conflict between DNA evidence and the s 114 Evidence Act presumption of paternity less critical in

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan (No 2) [2005] SGHC 3

The court assessed damages for defamation, noting that the defendant's conduct in making false allegations and his subsequent bad faith in legal proceedings warranted a higher award than previous precedents.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Kang Seong Yong [2005] SGHC 29

Where a false representation is made under s 57(1) of the Immigration Act, a custodial sentence is the norm, and a fine is only warranted under exceptional circumstances.

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Sarjit Singh Rapati v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 28

An appellate court will not disturb a trial judge's findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence, and the court will not interfere with prosecutorial discretion in preferring charges.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read