Latest articles
Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and Others (No 5) [2004] SGHC 188
The High Court hearing an appeal against a registrar’s decision can only rely on the papers filed and/or admitted before the registrar; documents brought into chambers but not formally admitted are not part of the record of appeal.
Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG and Others [2004] SGHC 187
The court has inherent jurisdiction to clarify its own orders even after they are pronounced, and the principle of functus officio does not prevent the court from correcting minor oversights or clarifying terms.
Public Prosecutor v Selvakumar Pillai s/o Suppiah Pillai [2004] SGHC 186
The court held that circumstantial evidence must lead inevitably and inexorably to the conclusion of guilt, and that the trial judge's findings on the admissibility of a confession were not to be disturbed unless plainly wrong.
UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 185
A bank does not become a lawful holder of a bill of lading under the Bills of Lading Act if the bill was not delivered to it by the shipper or an authorized party, and lacks the necessary indorsement.
Joshua Steven v Joshua Deborah Steven and Others (No 2) [2004] SGHC 184
An amendment to pleadings at the end of a trial will not be allowed if it introduces a distinct defence that would require further cross-examination and prejudice the other party, especially when the litigation could have been conducted efficiently from the start.
Tan and Au Partnership v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2625 [2004] SGHC 183
The Management Corporation is legally obliged under s 126(9) of the Land Titles (Strata) Act to pay legal fees directly to the solicitors engaged for the privatisation exercise, even in the absence of a direct contract between the Management Corporation and the solicitors.
Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 182
Silence can be unequivocal evidence of acceptance in a landlord-tenant relationship where the parties' conduct, objectively ascertained, supports the existence of a contract.
Wong Ser Wan v Ng Bok Eng Holdings Pte Ltd and Another [2004] SGHC 181
A conveyance of property made with the intent to defraud creditors is voidable under s 73B of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act.
Re Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam [2004] SGHC 180
The court held that an applicant for reinstatement to the roll of advocates and solicitors must provide substantive evidence of rehabilitation and reformed character, as the burden of proof lies on the applicant to show they are fit to be re-admitted.
Mustaza Bin Abdul Majid v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 18
Theft under s 380 of the Penal Code is committed when a person dishonestly takes movable property from a place used for the custody of property without the owner's consent. The ability to pay does not negate dishonest intent.
Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte Ltd v Projector SA [2004] SGHC 179
The court discharged an interim mandatory injunction because the underlying necessity for the injunction had disappeared as security had been deposited, while reserving the determination of damages and costs to the trial judge.
Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd v Rankine and Hill (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 178
The court held that an action in negligence should be commenced by way of a writ of summons rather than an originating summons when particulars of negligence and damage are required. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove damage, which is a necessary elem
Cheok Soon Huat v Tan Yee Hiang [2004] SGHC 177
The court held that it has the authority to reverse the priority between the CPF Board and a bank in the division of matrimonial assets, and that such an order is valid even if one party refuses to consent, provided the CPF Board itself has no objection.
Merriwa Nominees Pty Ltd v Romar Positioning Equipment Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 176
The court held that the Defendants, as trustees, failed to justify certain deductions in their account to the Plaintiffs, specifically regarding withholding tax and unsupported expenses, and ordered the account to be adjusted accordingly.
Lau Khee Leong v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 175
An appellate court will not overturn a trial judge’s findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or reached against the weight of the evidence, especially where findings depend on witness credibility.
Royal Global Exports Pte Ltd and Others v Good Stream Co Ltd and Another [2004] SGHC 174
A Mareva injunction should not be used to prevent a defendant from using assets to satisfy bona fide debts incurred in the ordinary course of business, as the court should not rewrite insolvency law or grant plaintiffs a preference they do not otherwise have.
J Ravinthiran v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 173
The court affirmed that the sentencing norm for s 326 Penal Code offences is two and a half to four years' imprisonment with nine to 12 strokes of the cane, and that the use of a motor vehicle as a weapon is a critical aggravating factor.
Public Prosecutor v Somrak Senkham and Another [2004] SGHC 172
In Public Prosecutor v Somrak Senkham and Another, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Property, Immigration — Criminal offences.
Ng Keng Yong v Public Prosecutor and Another Appeal [2004] SGHC 171
The standard of care for criminal negligence under s 304A of the Penal Code is the same as the civil standard of care, and the test for causation requires the negligent act to be a substantial cause of the result.
RBG Resources plc (in liquidation) v Banque Cantonale Vaudoise and Others [2004] SGHC 170
A party cannot use an application for leave to appeal to seek a variation of a costs order based on an issue that should be raised in a respondent's case under the Rules of Court.
Rupchand Bhojwani Sunil v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 17
The court held that while Internet misuse can be an aggravating factor, it must be balanced against the nature of the offence; where the misuse is peripheral to a simple cheating offence, a maximum sentence may be manifestly excessive.
Stratech Systems Ltd v Nyam Chiu Shin (Yan Qiuxin) and Others [2004] SGHC 168
The court held that the third defendant was liable for inducing a breach of contract by the first and second defendants, but awarded only nominal damages as the plaintiff suffered no real or substantial damage.
Joshua Steven v Joshua Deborah Steven and Others [2004] SGHC 166
The court held that the alleged trust failed for lack of the three certainties (intention, subject matter, and objects) and that the defendants could not introduce a new claim of proprietary estoppel after the trial had concluded.
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and Others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and Others [2004] SGHC 165
The court held that it has jurisdiction to order cross-examination of a defendant on a Mareva disclosure affidavit if it is just and convenient to do so, particularly where the disclosure is incomplete or inadequate.