§

Latest articles

Singapore

Wee Soon Kim Anthony v The Law Society of Singapore (Davinder Singh and another, proposed interveners, Third Party) (No 5) [2003] SGHC 32

A party claiming costs must justify the claim with adequate information and documentary evidence; a party should not claim a high figure in the hope of being allowed a percentage of it.

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Hi-Amp Engineering Pte Ltd v Technicdelta Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 316

In Hi-Amp Engineering v Technicdelta, the High Court awarded the plaintiff $361,907.12 for variation works but penalized them with a 50% reduction in legal costs due to inconsistent and poorly presented claim figures. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

The "Seaway" [2003] SGHC 315

In The "Seaway" [2003] SGHC 315, the High Court dismissed the defendants' appeal regarding limitation of liability under the Merchant Shipping Act. Despite the ruling, the court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs, as they failed on the primary issue that dominated the appeal.

Sushant Shukla· ·7 min read
Singapore

Macquarie Corporate Telecommunications Pte Ltd v Phoenix Communications Pte Ltd and Another [2003] SGHC 314

The court held that the second defendant's statements were defamatory and that the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege failed due to malice.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Rosaline Singh v Jayabalan Samidurai (alias Jerome Jayabalan) [2003] SGHC 313

The court affirmed the District Judge's division of matrimonial assets and decision on maintenance, noting that the division of matrimonial assets is not an exact science and requires a broad-brush approach.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Tang Kay Heng Alan v Purwadi [2003] SGHC 312

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for commission because the plaintiff failed to prove a binding contract, failed to call corroborating evidence, and provided evidence that was fundamentally flawed and contradictory.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Ng Ah Lek v The Personal Representatives of Low Keng Suang @ Low Tai Kheng, deceased [2003] SGHC 310

The court assessed damages for a plaintiff who suffered severe injuries in a motorcycle accident, including paralysis and fractures, and determined compensation for pain and suffering, future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, and maid expenses.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Pirelli General PLC and Others v PSA Corp Ltd and Another [2003] SGHC 31

The weight limitation under Article IV Rule 5(a) of the Hague-Visby Rules is calculated based on the actual weight of the goods lost or damaged, rather than the total weight of the entire article or consignment.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Chai Yong Construction Co Pte Ltd v Chan Hock Seng [2003] SGHC 309

The decision in [2003] SGHC 309 represents a significant procedural and substantive exploration of the principles governing the assessment of damages in construction disputes within the Singapore jurisdiction. Following a liability phase where the plaintiff, Chai Yong Constructio

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Kwok Seng Fatt Jeremy v Choy Chee Hau [2003] SGHC 308

The court assessed damages for a plaintiff who suffered paralysis and other injuries in a road accident, determining appropriate multipliers and addressing claims for future medical, nursing, and transport expenses.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Chip Thye Enterprises Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Phay Gi Mo and Others [2003] SGHC 307

Directors owe fiduciary duties to the company, and when a company is insolvent, these duties extend to the interests of the creditors. Directors who misapply company funds or declare dividends while the company is insolvent are in breach of these duties.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Teo Yeow Chuah [2003] SGHC 306

The court held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption of possession under s 18(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the presumption of trafficking under s 17(c) applied.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG [2003] SGHC 305

The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant's officers made misrepresentations that caused him loss, and that the plaintiff had been adequately advised on the risks of the DFF Strategy.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Poh Kim Video Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 304

The court held that for sentencing purposes under s 136(2) of the Copyright Act, a box set of a drama series can be considered a single 'article' rather than each individual VCD within the set, and that raising a failed defence is not an aggravating factor.

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Lim Eng Guan Derek v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGHC 303

An appellate court will be slow to interfere with a trial judge's finding of fact based on witness credibility. A bare assertion of 'trying one's best' is insufficient to establish a 'reasonable excuse' for failing to provide a breath specimen under s 70 of the Road Traffic Act.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Chong Hon Kuan Ivan and Another v Levy Maurice and Others [2003] SGHC 302

A director who is not a shareholder may be joined as a party in an oppression action under s 216 of the Companies Act if they are alleged to be responsible for the oppressive conduct, even if no specific relief is sought against them.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Yongnam Development Pte Ltd v Springleaves Tower Ltd and Another [2003] SGHC 301

In Yongnam Development Pte Ltd v Springleaves Tower Ltd [2003] SGHC 301, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, ruling that the failure to join the assignor in an equitable assignment of debt precluded the court from granting relief, especially where records failed to reflect the transfer.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Nop Wen Xuan Cultural Artifacts Pte Ltd v Leong Hwa Chan Si Temple and Another [2003] SGHC 300

The court held that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants as the plaintiffs failed to prove notice of the assignment of the partnership's business to the incorporated entity, and that the firm (the partnership) was in breach of the agreement.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Tan Seow Cheng v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd [2003] SGHC 30

The court held that a plaintiff must provide material particulars, such as the identity of the person who made the alleged remarks, in the Statement of Claim to enable the defendant to prepare for trial, and cannot rely on 'best of knowledge' as a substitute for such particulars.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Vadivel Ramesh and Another v Aegis Equipment Pte Ltd and Another [2003] SGHC 3

A workman who has filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot maintain a common law action for damages against his employer unless the compensation claim is first withdrawn.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Sulochana d/o Tambiah Dirumala Sakkrawarthi v Rajalakshmi Ramoo [2003] SGHC 299

An appellate court will be slow to overturn a trial judge's findings of fact where they hinge on the assessment of witness credibility, unless the decision is manifestly wrong or against the weight of evidence.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

ECRC Land Pte Ltd v Ho Wing On Christopher and Others [2003] SGHC 298

The court held that directors' commercial decisions should not be interfered with if made in the honest and reasonable belief that they were for the best interests of the company, and that the plaintiff failed to prove unfair preference or other claims.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

G v R (No 2) [2003] SGHC 297

The court affirmed the district judge's division of matrimonial assets and maintenance award, noting that the division was equitable and that the petitioner failed to show the judge was plainly wrong.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Societe Generale v Tai Kee Sing @ Tai Hean Sing [2003] SGHC 296

The Singapore High Court affirmed a summary judgment in favour of Societe Generale, rejecting the defendant's claims of contract illegality under Malaysian law and alleged failures in collateral management. The court upheld the choice of Singapore law and the creditor's discretion on sale timing.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read