Latest articles
Lim Cher Foong v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 27
The appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly reached against the weight of the evidence, especially when findings hinge on the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility.
Pannirselvam s/o Anthonisamy v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 26
This case clarifies that for a rioting conviction under section 147, the prosecution only needs to prove the accused shared the common object of the assembly. Mere presence at the scene can establish membership even if no specific overt act is proven.
City Hardware Pte Ltd v Goh Boon Chye [2005] SGHC 25
The Cheque Truncation System does not modify the legal nature or negotiability of cheques, and presentment is dispensed with where the drawer has no funds and no reason to believe the cheque would be paid.
City Hardware Pte Ltd v Kenrich Electronics Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 24
The Moneylenders Act is intended to regulate the business of moneylending and does not apply to genuine commercial transactions, even if they involve raising money or are structured to avoid the Act.
Marina Offshore Pte Ltd v China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Another [2005] SGHC 238
The court held that the plaintiff failed to comply with the warranty surveyor's recommended route, rendering the insurance policy void, and that the vessel was unseaworthy due to improper manning and lack of stability information.
Ensure Engineering Pte Ltd v Invista (Singapore) Pte Ltd (formerly known as Du Pont Singapore Pte Ltd) [2005] SGHC 237
In Ensure Engineering Pte Ltd v Invista (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 237, the court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for negligence, ruling they failed to prove the plaintiff caused the boiler damage. The plaintiff's claim for payment for work and materials was allowed.
Sim Yong Kim v Evenstar Investments Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 236
In Sim Yong Kim v Evenstar Investments Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 236, the High Court dismissed a petition to wind up a company on 'just and equitable' grounds, ruling that a shareholder's desire to exit does not justify dissolution absent evidence of oppression or exclusion from management.
Panwah Steel Pte Ltd v Koh Brothers Building & Civil Engineering Contractor (Pte) Ltd [2005] SGHC 235
The court held that the agreement was not 'project-specific' and that the tolerance provision allowed both parties to exercise the option to supply or order 10% less than the contract quantity.
Burwill Trading Pte Ltd v Panwah Steel Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 234
In Burwill Trading Pte Ltd v Panwah Steel Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 234, the High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $1,394,953.65 in damages for breach of steel supply agreements and dismissing the defendant's counterclaim.
Public Prosecutor v Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi and Another [2005] SGHC 233
The court held that wilful blindness as to the contents of a package containing controlled drugs does not constitute a defence to a charge of importing such drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Saatchi & Saatchi Pte Ltd and Others v Tan Hun Ling (Clarke Quay Pte Ltd, Third Party) [2005] SGHC 232
In Saatchi & Saatchi v Tan Hun Ling [2005], the High Court held both the tenant and landlord liable for fire damage, apportioning 50% liability to the landlord. The court ruled that specific lease terms override general maintenance clauses regarding specialized exhaust systems.
Law Society of Singapore v Tham Kok Leong Thomas [2005] SGHC 231
A solicitor acting as a stakeholder owes a professional duty to hold funds until conditions are met, and a breach of this duty, especially when compounded by misleading statements, constitutes grossly improper conduct.
Heng Chye Poh v Heng Peng Sing [2005] SGHC 230
The court found that the defendant had a beneficial interest in the flat because the purchase was largely funded by the defendant and the deceased, and the plaintiff lacked the means to pay for the flat.
Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 23
The High Court affirmed that the revisionary jurisdiction is exercised sparingly and only where there is serious injustice, and that the benchmark sentence for GST evasion is 15 to 20 times the tax evaded.
IA v Comptroller of Income Tax [2005] SGHC 229
Borrowing expenses, prepayment penalties, and guarantee expenses incurred by a property developer to finance the acquisition of trading stock are revenue in nature and deductible under s 14(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Pacific Assets Management Ltd and Others v Chen Lip Keong [2005] SGHC 228
Service of a writ in accordance with an ad hoc agreement between parties is valid service, even if the method of service is not otherwise prescribed by the rules of court.
Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd v Sanchoon Builders Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 227
A breach of contract that is not repudiatory in nature does not entitle the innocent party to terminate the contract. Minor breaches only entitle the innocent party to claim damages.
Goh Lee Yin v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 226
Probation may be an appropriate sentence for an offender suffering from a serious mental disorder, even if the offender is over 21, provided there is a strong support system and a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.
Nation Fittings (M) Sdn Bhd v Oystertec Plc and Another Suit [2005] SGHC 225
In Nation Fittings (M) Sdn Bhd v Oystertec Plc [2005] SGHC 225, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's passing off claims, revoked their trade marks for non-use, and issued an injunction against the plaintiff for making groundless threats under the Trade Marks Act.
Evergreat Construction Co Pte Ltd v Presscrete Engineering Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 224
An expert's determination is binding as a matter of contract and cannot be challenged unless the expert has departed from his instructions in a material respect or acted with fraud or corruption.
Sim Cheng Soon v BT Engineering Pte Ltd and Another [2005] SGHC 223
In Sim Cheng Soon v BT Engineering Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 223, the High Court dismissed a claim for workplace injury damages. The court ruled the defendants were not liable, finding no breach of duty as the hazard was not concealed and the plaintiff failed to prove his version of the accident.
Robin Anak Mawang v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 222
The court held that it is not necessary to prove that the appellant personally punched the victim to establish a charge of rioting, provided the appellant was a member of an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing hurt.
Public Prosecutor v Vijayakumar s/o Veeriah [2005] SGHC 221
The accused was convicted of murder as the court found he was the aggressor and did not act in private defence, and the killing was not a result of a sudden fight.
Korea Exchange Bank v Standard Chartered Bank [2005] SGHC 220
The court held that express terms in a letter of credit can override provisions of the UCP 500 incorporated by reference if there is an irreconcilable inconsistency, and that an issuing bank is precluded from asserting discrepancies if it fails to provide a notice of refusal upon