LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

Hawley & Hazel Chemical Co (S) Pte Ltd v Szu Ming Trading Pte Ltd [2008] SGHC 13

Summary judgment should be granted to a plaintiff where the defendant has no defence to the claim, even if the defendant sets up a plausible counterclaim, with a stay of execution granted pending the trial of the counterclaim.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Lim Leong Huat v Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd [2008] SGHC 12

This case clarifies that in summary judgment proceedings under Order 14, a defendant is barred from relying on affidavit evidence that contradicts their formal pleadings. The court held that consistency between pleadings and evidence is essential unless an amendment is granted.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Norhazri bin Mohd Faudzi [2008] SGHC 10

The court held that a first-time offender charged with multiple serious offences may be denied the status of a first-time offender for sentencing purposes, and that consecutive sentences for multiple offences are appropriate in serious cases.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Lee Seng Cheong and Others v Seah Bak Seng [2008] SGHC 1

In contracts for the sale and purchase of securities traded in a securities exchange, time is generally of the essence of the contract, and where time is of the essence, the failure to deliver shares by the agreed date constitutes a breach of condition entitling the purchaser to

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and Another [2008] SGHC 98

The court held that litigation privilege requires a reasonable prospect of litigation and that the dominant purpose of the document creation must be for such litigation. The court also clarified the distinction between jurisdiction and discretion in discovery applications.

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Singapore

Frantonios Marine Services Pte Ltd and Another v Kay Swee Tuan [2008] SGHC 91

The court held that once the condition in s 388 of the Companies Act is satisfied, the court has discretion to order security for costs, and the policy of the legislation is to protect defendants against impecunious companies.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Teo Seng Kee Bob v Arianecorp Ltd [2008] SGHC 81

The court held that a contract was concluded on 20 December 2006 where the defendant agreed to transfer shares, release inventory, and write off debts in exchange for $300,000, finding that the defendant obtained a practical benefit from the plaintiff's part-payment, satisfying t

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Cheng Song Chuan (trading as Trade Sources Enterprise) v Chin Ivan [2008] SGHC 39

The court held that a project manager who is not a registered architect or engineer is not precluded from recovering fees for project management services, provided the services rendered do not constitute the practice of architecture or engineering as defined by the relevant statu

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

George Raymond Zage III and Another v Rasif David and Others [2008] SGHC 244

The test for dishonest assistance is an objective one, and the court will look at all circumstances known to the third party at the time, including personal attributes like experience and intelligence.

Sushant Shukla· ·17 min read
Singapore

Trane US, Inc and Others v Kirkham John Reginald Stott and Others [2008] SGHC 240

The court granted an anti-suit injunction to restrain the defendants from pursuing foreign proceedings in Indonesia, finding that Singapore was the natural forum for the dispute as the agreements were governed by Singapore law and the issues were inextricably linked to those agre

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Tan Wee Fong and Others v Denieru Tatsu F&B Holdings (S) Pte Ltd [2008] SGHC 238

The court must examine all circumstances of the case to determine if it is just to order security for costs, and the fact that a plaintiff is resident outside the jurisdiction does not automatically entitle the defendant to such an order.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd and Others [2008] SGHC 200

The court maintained a Mareva injunction against the defendants to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of an Originating Summons for arbitrator's fees, finding that the plaintiff had a good arguable case and a risk of asset dissipation.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Citiraya Technology Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Centillion Environment & Recycling Ltd [2008] SGHC 183

The court held that there was no total failure of consideration in the contract as the staged payments were intended to cover preparatory work and milestones, and the plaintiff failed to prove its entitlement to a refund.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

STX Corporation and Another v Herry Beng Koestanto and Others and Another Matter [2008] SGHC 150

The court dismissed an application for a stay of proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens where the parties had no connection to Singapore but the defendants had assets in Singapore and the underlying contract contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom Technology Ltd [2008] SGHC 134

An arbitration agreement providing for one institution to administer an ad hoc arbitration in accordance with the procedural rules of another is valid and enforceable, provided the administering institution is capable of performing the functions required by the procedural rules.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Tan Yu Min Winston (by his next friend Tan Cheng Tong) v Uni-Fruitveg Pte Ltd [2008] SGHC 123

The court held that for personal injury cases involving multiple head injuries, a component approach to assessing damages is preferable to a global approach to ensure fair compensation for discrete losses of sensory functions.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Teeni Enterprise Pte Ltd v Singco Pte Ltd [2008] SGHC 115

The court held that enforcement of an unless order is a draconian measure that should only be exercised when the failure to comply is intentional and contumelious, and that the punishment must be proportionate to the default.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read