LITT
Try LITT free
China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd (formerly known as Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd) [2005] SGHC 40
The court held that there was no double insurance because the plaintiff's and defendant's policies covered different risks and subject matters, and that the parol evidence rule (s 94 Evidence Act) did not apply to the facts as the parties were strangers to each other's contracts.
Lassiter Ann Masters (suing as the widow and dependant of Lassiter Henry Adolphus, deceased) v To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette) (No 2) [2005] SGHC 4
A claim for loss of inheritance is not maintainable in a dependency claim in Singapore following the 1987 amendments to the Civil Law Act.
Leow Chin Hua v Ng Poh Buan [2005] SGHC 39
A party who conducts their own investigation and does not rely on a misrepresentation cannot claim to have been induced by it.
Tan Chin Seng and Others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (No 2) [2005] SGHC 38
The court held that while the plaintiffs failed to prove pecuniary loss through diminution in membership value, they were entitled to general damages for loss of amenity and enjoyment under the Ruxley principle for breach of contract.
Jagir Singh Touwana v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 36
An appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or clearly reached against the weight of evidence, especially where findings hinge on the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility.
Ong Beng Leong v Public Prosecutor (No 2) [2005] SGHC 35
The High Court has no jurisdiction to grant an extension of time for filing a criminal reference under s 60(2) of the SCJA, as that power lies with the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, a stay of sentence pending a criminal reference will only be granted if the applicant demonstrates
Soon Li Heng Civil Engineering Pte Ltd v Woon Contractors Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 34
A sub-contractor is entitled to payment for work done under a lump sum contract where the work has been completed to the satisfaction of the employer, even if the main contractor alleges breaches of contract that are not substantiated.
Chu Wai Kiu v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 32
The court held that imported goods subject to GST are treated as dutiable goods for the purposes of the Customs Act, and failure to declare such goods constitutes an offence under s 128(1)(f) of the Customs Act.
AD v AE (minors: custody, care, control and access) [2005] SGHC 30
The court held that under s 92 of the Women's Charter, the court has jurisdiction to determine custody of children of the marriage regardless of biological paternity, rendering the conflict between DNA evidence and the s 114 Evidence Act presumption of paternity less critical in
Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan (No 2) [2005] SGHC 3
The court assessed damages for defamation, noting that the defendant's conduct in making false allegations and his subsequent bad faith in legal proceedings warranted a higher award than previous precedents.
Public Prosecutor v Kang Seong Yong [2005] SGHC 29
Where a false representation is made under s 57(1) of the Immigration Act, a custodial sentence is the norm, and a fine is only warranted under exceptional circumstances.
Sarjit Singh Rapati v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 28
An appellate court will not disturb a trial judge's findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence, and the court will not interfere with prosecutorial discretion in preferring charges.
Lim Cher Foong v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 27
The appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly reached against the weight of the evidence, especially when findings hinge on the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility.
Pannirselvam s/o Anthonisamy v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 26
This case clarifies that for a rioting conviction under section 147, the prosecution only needs to prove the accused shared the common object of the assembly. Mere presence at the scene can establish membership even if no specific overt act is proven.
City Hardware Pte Ltd v Goh Boon Chye [2005] SGHC 25
The Cheque Truncation System does not modify the legal nature or negotiability of cheques, and presentment is dispensed with where the drawer has no funds and no reason to believe the cheque would be paid.
City Hardware Pte Ltd v Kenrich Electronics Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 24
The Moneylenders Act is intended to regulate the business of moneylending and does not apply to genuine commercial transactions, even if they involve raising money or are structured to avoid the Act.
Marina Offshore Pte Ltd v China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Another [2005] SGHC 238
The court held that the plaintiff failed to comply with the warranty surveyor's recommended route, rendering the insurance policy void, and that the vessel was unseaworthy due to improper manning and lack of stability information.
Panwah Steel Pte Ltd v Koh Brothers Building & Civil Engineering Contractor (Pte) Ltd [2005] SGHC 235
The court held that the agreement was not 'project-specific' and that the tolerance provision allowed both parties to exercise the option to supply or order 10% less than the contract quantity.
Public Prosecutor v Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi and Another [2005] SGHC 233
The court held that wilful blindness as to the contents of a package containing controlled drugs does not constitute a defence to a charge of importing such drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Law Society of Singapore v Tham Kok Leong Thomas [2005] SGHC 231
A solicitor acting as a stakeholder owes a professional duty to hold funds until conditions are met, and a breach of this duty, especially when compounded by misleading statements, constitutes grossly improper conduct.
Heng Chye Poh v Heng Peng Sing [2005] SGHC 230
The court found that the defendant had a beneficial interest in the flat because the purchase was largely funded by the defendant and the deceased, and the plaintiff lacked the means to pay for the flat.
Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 23
The High Court affirmed that the revisionary jurisdiction is exercised sparingly and only where there is serious injustice, and that the benchmark sentence for GST evasion is 15 to 20 times the tax evaded.
IA v Comptroller of Income Tax [2005] SGHC 229
Borrowing expenses, prepayment penalties, and guarantee expenses incurred by a property developer to finance the acquisition of trading stock are revenue in nature and deductible under s 14(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Pacific Assets Management Ltd and Others v Chen Lip Keong [2005] SGHC 228
Service of a writ in accordance with an ad hoc agreement between parties is valid service, even if the method of service is not otherwise prescribed by the rules of court.