LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Sundaraju s/o Munusamy [2002] SGHC 158

The court held that for a charge under s 22(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, the prosecution need not prove that the accused intended to commit an offence or that the carrying of the instrument was related to the commission of an offence. The t

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Chng Wei Meng v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 157

The offence of driving while disqualified under s 43(4) of the Road Traffic Act is a strict liability offence, and the defence of reasonable care is available to the accused.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Tjo Kwe In v Chia Song Kwan [2002] SGHC 156

The High Court has no jurisdiction to extend time to serve a notice of appeal where the application is made after the expiration of the prescribed period, and such an extension can only be granted by the Court of Appeal.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Tan Lian Tiong [2002] SGHC 155

An appellate court will be slow to disturb the findings of a lower court unless they are clearly reached against the weight of evidence, and the prosecution must prove that the accused failed to keep a proper lookout based on the specific facts of the case.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Heng Aik Peng v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 153

The mere fact that an accused told lies should not be taken as evidence of his guilt, unless the criteria in R v Lucas are satisfied. However, a court may rely on such lies to determine the credibility of the accused as a witness.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Seng Hock Heng Contractor Pte Ltd v Hup Seng Bee Construction Pte Ltd and Another [2002] SGHC 151

The court will not grant an injunction to restrain payment on a performance bond unless the applicant discharges the onus of proving fraud or unconscionable conduct, which requires more than inconclusive evidence.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

KLW Holdings Ltd v Singapore Press Holdings Ltd [2002] SGHC 150

The court held that there is no 'newspaper rule' in Singapore that grants an absolute privilege to journalists to refuse disclosure of sources in pre-trial discovery, but disclosure will only be ordered if it is relevant and necessary in the interests of justice.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Re Baring Futures (Singapore) Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and another action [2002] SGHC 15

The court exercised its discretion to defer determination of indemnity and priority claims until the underlying litigation contingencies were resolved.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Soh Seng Hwee v Paw Ling Chiang Lina [2002] SGHC 149

The court refused to vary maintenance or order a lump sum maintenance due to insufficient evidence of the husband's assets and income, and noted the husband's lack of full disclosure.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Sinojaya Sdn Bhd v Metal Component Engineering Pte Ltd & A Third Party [2002] SGHC 148

The court held that the meeting was on a without prejudice basis and there was no concluded agreement between the parties.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Lim Kim Luan v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 147

An appellate court will generally defer to the trial judge's findings of fact unless it is convinced that the decision is wrong.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Hengwell Development Pte Ltd v Thing Chiang Ching and Others [2002] SGHC 146

A shareholder may be granted leave under s 216A of the Companies Act to bring an action on behalf of a company where the company has no cause of action or is unable to enforce its rights, and the policy reasons against recovering reflective loss do not apply.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Lim Hock Hin [2002] SGHC 145

Life imprisonment is appropriate for mentally impaired offenders convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder where the primary concerns are treatment, rehabilitation, and prevention of future harm to the public.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v MW [2002] SGHC 144

The court held that sexual offences committed by a father against his daughter must be punished severely, with consecutive sentences for multiple charges to reflect the gravity of the abuse.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Senthamel Selve d/o Ramanathan v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 143

An appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly reached against the weight of the evidence.

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Singapore

Fragrance Foodstuff Pte Ltd v Bee Cheng Hiang Hup Chong Foodstuff Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 142

The court held that the defendants infringed the plaintiffs' copyright in their logo and that the defence of fair dealing was not available as the matter was not of public interest and the work was artistic, not literary.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Fazely bin Rahmat and Another [2002] SGHC 141

The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused shared a common object to cause hurt with dangerous weapons, as the original common object was merely to pick a fight without weapons.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Re Sher Jules QC [2002] SGHC 140

The court allowed the ad hoc admission of a Queen's Counsel after finding that the case involved complex issues of restitution and contract law, and that the applicant's credentials and the client's need for international confidence justified the exercise of the court's discretio

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Abu Syeed Chowdhury v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 14

A custodial sentence is the applicable norm for offences of false representation under s 57(1)(k) of the Immigration Act, and a fine should only be warranted under exceptional circumstances.

Sushant Shukla· ·10 min read
Singapore

The "Aquarius III" [2002] SGHC 138

Post-arrest wages and disbursements of a crew retained to meet regulatory requirements for a vessel under arrest are to be treated as Sheriff's expenses.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Cendekia Candranegara Tjiang v Yin Kum Choy and Others [2002] SGHC 136

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that expressly requires further agreements to be entered into on terms to be agreed upon at a later date is not a binding contract if the essential terms are not settled and the document is merely a preliminary framework.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Chiltern Park Development Pte Ltd v Ong Pang Wee and Others [2002] SGHC 135

The High Court does not have jurisdiction to order the transfer of proceedings from a Magistrate's Court to the High Court, as the statutory scheme under the Subordinate Courts Act only provides for transfers from the District Court.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Baridhi Shipping Lines Ltd and Another v Sea Consortium Pte Ltd and Another [2002] SGHC 134

The court held that where a foreign court has ruled it has no jurisdiction to hear a claim, the burden remains on the defendant to prove that the foreign forum is clearly and distinctly more appropriate than the Singapore forum.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Irawan Darsono and Another v Ong Soon Kiat [2002] SGHC 133

Contracts that are illegal as formed or intended to be performed in a legally prohibited manner are unenforceable.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read