§

Latest articles

Singapore

Ong Beng Leong v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 22

The word 'use' in s 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act means to employ for the purpose of misleading the principal, and does not require the document to be submitted to a third party.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Management Corporation Strata Title Plan Nos 1298 and 1304 v Chief Assessor and Comptroller of Property Tax [2005] SGHC 219

The court held that areas of common property in a shopping centre used for placing items like ATMs and kiosks constitute 'tenements' and are therefore taxable under the Property Tax Act, even if they are not physically demarcated by lines.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Wong Ser Wan v Ng Cheong Ling [2005] SGHC 218

The court held that gifts made between spouses for the purpose of inducing a spouse to withdraw divorce proceedings and to provide financial security are irrevocable and should not be brought into the matrimonial pool for division upon divorce.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy and Another (Ultramarine Holdings Ltd, intervener) [2005] SGHC 217

The High Court dismissed the appeal in Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy, upholding the arrest of the vessel Seeker I. The court applied the doctrine of approbation and reprobation, ruling that accepting benefits from a judgment precludes challenging the underlying arrest's validity.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

Chee Siok Chin and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Another [2005] SGHC 216

The court held that the applicants' claim was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and that the police had acted within their statutory powers under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Tan Wai Kok (formerly trading as TWK Skill Engineering Works) v Hart Engineering (Pte) Ltd [2005] SGHC 215

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to payment for works performed, subject to set-offs for defective works and materials, and that the defendant's counterclaim for conspiracy was not made out.

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Singapore

Re Tang Yoke Kheng (ex parte Lek Benedict and another) [2005] SGHC 214

The court held that exceptional circumstances existed to warrant a stay of bankruptcy proceedings where the debtor was the main creditor of a company and was funding the liquidator's action against the petitioning creditors, who were also directors of that company.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Lin Bin v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 213

The court held that the degree of control exercised by an employer is a significant factor in determining employment status, but the substance of the relationship must be considered. The court also affirmed that the prosecution need only establish that the appellant knew or had r

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Tan Yeow Hiang Kenneth and Others v Tan Chor Chuan and Others [2005] SGHC 212

The court held that it was functus officio after the order for costs had been extracted and could not vary the order to allow a reduction for failed defences. Furthermore, even if it had the power, no reduction was warranted as the defendants had not acted unreasonably in raising

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Yeo Gek Lang Susie (administratrix of the estate of Teo Lay Swee) and Others v Guan Soon Development Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 211

Amendments to a company's Articles of Association take effect from the date the resolution is passed unless otherwise stipulated in the amendment itself.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Cheah Geok Tuan (alias Seah Geok Tuan) and Another v Lie Khin Sin and Another [2005] SGHC 210

The court held that a written agreement for the sale of shares with a buyback option was in substance a loan agreement, given the unusual terms and the surrounding evidence.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Yip Jenn Yeuan v Ng Ah Chen [2005] SGHC 21

The High Court dismissed the appeal in Yip Jenn Yeuan v Ng Ah Chen, ruling that an agreement on liability without settled quantum does not constitute a binding contract. The court held that such agreements cannot be used to revive time-barred tort claims as a fresh cause of action in contract.

Sushant Shukla· ·7 min read
Singapore

Lee Bee Kim Jennifer v Lim Yew Khang Cecil [2005] SGHC 209

This case clarifies that interim maintenance orders do not bind final ancillary relief decisions. The court emphasized the duty of full and frank disclosure, ruling that adverse inferences will be drawn against parties who fail to disclose their assets accurately.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Richemont International SA v Goldlion Enterprise (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 208

The court held that the Respondent's mark 'Jean Mercier' was not similar to the Appellant's mark 'Baume & Mercier', and therefore there was no likelihood of confusion under s 8(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Iskandar bin Muhamad Nordin v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 207

Intellectually disabled offenders are not treated differently for sentencing purposes and are criminally culpable for their actions, with the weight of intellectual disability as a mitigating factor depending on the case's circumstances.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Lim Chi Szu Margaret and Another v Risis Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 206

The court held that the requirements under s 34(1)(c) and s 34(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act are cumulative in nature for interlocutory proceedings, and that the Bozson test is the correct test for determining whether an order is final or interlocutory.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Syarikat Wen Ken Drug Sdn Bhd and Others v Lo Hock Ling & Co [2005] SGHC 205

An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge's findings of fact unless the judge was plainly wrong, especially where the judge had the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

RBG Resources plc (in liquidation) v Credit Lyonnais [2005] SGHC 204

In RBG Resources plc v Credit Lyonnais [2005], the Singapore High Court dismissed a creditor's application for preferential debt admission, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to bypass statutory insolvency frameworks or override ring-fencing rules in ancillary liquidations.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Tan Chwee Chye and Others v P V RM Kulandayan Chettiar [2005] SGHC 203

The High Court set aside a 2002 order, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession against a co-owner. The court held that exclusive occupation is insufficient without clear evidence of 'ouster'—an unequivocal act of trespass denying the other co-owner's title.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

De Montfort University v Stanford Training Systems Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 202

A winding-up petition should be stayed where the debt forming the basis of the petition is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Allied Marine Services Ltd v LMJ International Ltd [2005] SGHC 201

A Mareva injunction will not be granted if it substantially interferes with the business rights of innocent third parties, even if the plaintiff offers an indemnity.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Firstwaters Pte Ltd v Lindeteves-Jacoberg Ltd [2005] SGHC 200

The court will not strike out a claim under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court if the deficiency in the pleading can be cured by an amendment, especially where the real intention of the parties can be discerned from the instrument as a whole.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Siew Boon Loong [2005] SGHC 20

A sentencing court should consider all antecedents up to the moment of sentencing, but the weight accorded depends on the circumstances, including the age of the offences and whether the accused acted in defiant disregard of the law.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan (No 2) [2005] SGHC 2

The court assessed damages for defamation in a case where the defendant had made serious allegations of dishonesty against a senior government official and failed to substantiate his defences.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read