§

Latest articles

Singapore

Cheong Siat Fong v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 176

In Cheong Siat Fong v PP [2005] SGHC 176, the High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and enhanced the sentences to 39 months imprisonment, ruling the original sentences were manifestly inadequate given the premeditated nature of the offences and the serious breach of trust involved.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

The Polo/Lauren Co, LP v Shop In Department Store Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 175

The High Court dismissed The Polo/Lauren Co's trade mark infringement claims against Shop In Department Store, ruling that no likelihood of confusion existed. The court emphasized that distinct target markets, price points, and retail environments preclude infringement despite similar mark classific

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Kaufman, Gregory Laurence and Others v Datacraft Asia Ltd and Another [2005] SGHC 174

The court held that the Letter Agreement did not create an entrustment relationship under Japanese law, and therefore no fiduciary duties were owed by the defendants to the plaintiffs.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Chong Barbara v Commissioner of Estate Duties [2005] SGHC 172

The court held that the net asset value method is the appropriate basis for valuing minority shareholdings in private investment-holding companies, and a 50% discount for lack of marketability and minority status is appropriate.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Ng Kee Shee v Fu Gaofei [2005] SGHC 171

In Ng Kee Shee v Fu Gaofei [2005] SGHC 171, the High Court allowed the husband's appeal, granting leave to divorce within three years of marriage. The court ruled that the wife's unilateral abandonment constituted exceptional hardship, justifying an exception to the statutory restriction.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Petrosin Corp Pte Ltd v Clough Engineering Ltd [2005] SGHC 170

The court found that there was no concluded oral agreement on 18 October 2001 as the parties intended to put the terms in writing and sign them, and no such signed agreement existed.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Finebuild Systems Pte Ltd v Transbilt Engineering Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2005] SGHC 17

The court has a wide discretion under s 334(1)(c) of the Companies Act to set aside the rights of a liquidator in favour of a creditor, and this discretion is not limited to cases involving dishonesty or trickery.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Law Society of Singapore v Jayaram Bala Subramaniam [2005] SGHC 169

A solicitor who has acted dishonestly by misappropriating clients' funds should be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City (Pte) Ltd [2005] SGHC 168

The court assessed damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities for a plaintiff suffering from Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD) following a leg injury, determining that while the injury was not life-threatening, the pain and suffering were severe and warranted a global awa

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Neo Corp Pte Ltd (under judicial management) v Neocorp Innovations Pte Ltd and Another Application [2005] SGHC 167

A right of action residing in a judicial manager to challenge a transaction under s 227T of the Companies Act does not continue to reside in a liquidator if the company is subsequently wound up; the liquidator must commence separate proceedings under s 329.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Antara Koh Pte Ltd v Eng Tou Offshore Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 166

The Singapore High Court dismissed Antara Koh Pte Ltd's application for a limitation decree, ruling the company failed to prove the crane barge casualty occurred without its actual fault or privity due to inadequate maintenance and supervision of safety-critical equipment.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Juminem and Another [2005] SGHC 165

In Public Prosecutor v Juminem [2005], the High Court ruled that two domestic workers were not guilty of murder, finding that abnormalities of mind substantially impaired their mental responsibility. The case clarifies the burden of proof for the diminished responsibility defence under s 300.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

Li Kong v Cheng Lai Nar [2005] SGHC 164

The court held that an appellate court may interfere with findings of fact in ancillary matters where the decision is based on inferences drawn from documents rather than oral testimony. It also clarified the attribution of financial contributions to matrimonial assets in the abs

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Yee Hong Pte Ltd v Tan Chye Hee Andrew (Ho Bee Development Pte Ltd, Third Party) [2005] SGHC 163

The court has jurisdiction under s 6(5) of the Arbitration Act to stay court proceedings and refer parties to arbitration where a party is claiming through or under a party to an arbitration agreement, even if there is no direct arbitration agreement between the parties to the co

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Lim Kau Tee and Another v Lee Kay Li [2005] SGHC 162

Case Details * Citation: [2005] SGHC 162 * Case Number: Suit 499 of 2004 * Decision Date: 1 September 2005 * Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore * Coram: Lai Siu Chiu J * Judgment Delivered

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

Dalian Hualiang Enterprise Group Co Ltd and Another v Louis Dreyfus Asia Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 161

The court held that a stay of proceedings under s 6(2) of the International Arbitration Act should not be granted where the dispute is clearly outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, such as a set-off claim arising from a separate contract to which the plaintiffs were not

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v V Murugesan [2005] SGHC 160

In Public Prosecutor v V Murugesan [2005] SGHC 160, the High Court sentenced the accused to 21 years' imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane for rape and abduction, emphasizing the necessity of deterrent sentencing for sexual predators and the court's power to order consecutive sentences.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

CX v CY (minor: custody, care, control and access) [2005] SGHC 16

Joint custody orders should be made even in acrimonious cases unless it is evident that joint custody will not work, as it is preferable to making no custody order at all.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Lim Chor Pee and Another [2005] SGHC 159

The court held that a statutory demand should be set aside if there is a genuine triable issue regarding a counterclaim, set-off, or cross demand that equals or exceeds the debt.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

S Selvamsylvester v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 158

The High Court has no absolute discretion to grant bail for non-bailable offences punishable with life imprisonment if there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is guilty.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Tan Siok Yee (suing by the committee of the person and estate, Liew Chee Kong) and Others v Chong Voon Kee Ivan [2005] SGHC 157

In Tan Siok Yee v Chong Voon Kee Ivan [2005] SGHC 157, the court apportioned 50% liability to both the pedestrian and the driver. The ruling highlights the reciprocal duty of care in road accidents, emphasizing that both parties must remain vigilant to avoid collisions during reversing maneuvers.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

State of Johor and Another v Tunku Alam Shah ibni Tunku Abdul Rahman and Others [2005] SGHC 156

The bequest of Tyersall as 'State property' in Sultan Abu Bakar's will was valid under the lex situs (Singapore law) and intended to vest in the reigning Sultan as a corporation sole, not as personal property.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Q & M Enterprises Sdn Bhd v Poh Kiat [2005] SGHC 155

The court affirmed that the principles of forum non conveniens in Spiliada apply in Singapore, and that the existence of a potential summary judgment claim under O 14 does not override the forum non conveniens analysis.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Took Leng How [2005] SGHC 154

The court held that the accused failed to prove the defence of diminished responsibility on a balance of probabilities, as he was not suffering from an abnormality of mind at the time of the offence.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read