LITT
Try LITT free
Teo Siew Ngoh v Ng Hock Huat [2013] SGHC 82
The court applied a broad brush approach to divide matrimonial assets, awarding the wife 35% of the matrimonial home and 35% of the husband's surplus assets, while awarding a lump sum maintenance of $180,000 in lieu of periodic maintenance.
Chan Kin Foo v City Developments Ltd [2013] SGHC 61
The court held that a collective sale process under the Land Titles (Strata) Act does not violate Article 12 of the Constitution as it provides equal opportunity to all subsidiary proprietors, and that the UDHR does not form part of local law.
Ryobi-Kiso (S) Pte Ltd v Lum Chang Building Contractors Pte Ltd and another
The court held that a call on a performance bond will only be restrained on the ground of unconscionability if there is a strong prima facie case of conduct so reprehensible or lacking in good faith that a court of conscience would intervene. Mere breaches of contract by the bene
Law Society of Singapore v Wan Hui Hong James
An advocate and solicitor who receives a significant gift from a client must advise the client to seek independent advice and refuse to act in respect of the gift, failing which they may be struck off for dishonesty.
Ong Han Ling v Low Ai Ming Sally (Tito Isaac & Co LLP, garnishee)
The court has discretion to refuse a garnishee order if it would be inequitable or unfair, particularly if it prejudices other creditors in an insolvent estate.
Pang Ah San v Singapore Medical Council
The court affirmed that the loop-PEG procedure was not generally accepted by the profession and that the Appellant's failure to seek approval for a clinical trial constituted professional misconduct.
Lee Pei-Ru Alice and another v Airtrust (Singapore) Pte Ltd
The court held that representations made by the controlling mind of a company (Peter Fong) to investors, assuring them that their investments were without risk and could be exited at any time with repayment by the company, were legally binding on the company.
Beijing Sinozonto Mining Investment Co Ltd v Goldenray Consortium (Singapore) Pte Ltd
The court held that an allegation of fraud or corruption to resist enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under s 31(4)(b) of the IAA must be proved on a balance of probabilities, with the strength of evidence required being commensurate with the seriousness of the allegation.
Tan Poh Weng Andy v Lee Jee
The court declined to record a consent interlocutory judgment in a motor accident claim due to suspicious circumstances surrounding the plaintiff's history of multiple accidents and potential exaggeration of claims, referring the matter to the Attorney-General for investigation.
Kwee Lee Fung Ivon v Lim Gordon
The court held that the marriage was not an equal partnership and that the Wife's contributions were exaggerated, leading to a division of matrimonial assets based on a broad brush approach rather than an equal split.
Chai Kwok Seng Anthony v CCM Group Limited
The parol evidence rule and an entire agreement clause in a written employment contract preclude the admission of extrinsic evidence of a prior oral commission agreement.
Anwar Siraj and another v Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd
An arbitrator has the right to resign for good cause, and the court may grant leave for such discharge where the relationship between the arbitrator and the parties has become acrimonious.
BLB and another v BLC and others
An arbitral award may be set aside under s 24(b) of the IAA and Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law where the tribunal fails to address a discrete head of claim submitted to it, resulting in real prejudice.
Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v Public Prosecutor
The court established a sentencing framework for first-time offenders under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, categorised by alcohol concentration levels, and clarified that the absence of aggravating factors is a neutral factor, not a mitigating one.
BFH v Comptroller of Income Tax
Expenditure incurred for the acquisition of 3G spectrum rights and a 3G FBO licence is capital in nature because it provides an enduring benefit and enhances the taxpayer's core business structure.
Koh Lau Keow and others v Attorney-General
A trust declared over property for the purpose of a temple and as a home/sanctuary for Buddhist vegetarian women is a valid charitable purpose trust as it advances religion and confers public benefit.
Comptroller of Income Tax v BJX
A stay of execution pending appeal will not be granted where no appeal has been filed and no special circumstances are shown to justify the stay.
BJV v BJW
The decision in BJV v BJW [2013] SGHC 140 represents a significant High Court ruling on the weight to be accorded to deeds of separation in the determination of ancillary matters. The case involved a cross-border matrimonial dispute between two American citizens of Korean descent
Buergin Juerg v Public Prosecutor
Section 377D(1) of the Penal Code precludes an accused from raising a defence of reasonable mistake as to the age of the victim in a charge under s 376B.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2668 v Rott George Hugo
The law on occupiers' liability in Singapore is a mere subset of the general law of negligence.
Global Yellow Pages Limited v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd and another suit
The court affirmed the use of an iterative process for keyword-based e-discovery to balance the need for relevant document disclosure with the proportionality of costs.
Quality Assurance Management Asia Pte Ltd v Zhang Qing and others [2013] SGHC 96
A fiduciary who breaches their duty of loyalty is liable for equitable compensation for losses connected to the breach, where common law rules of causation and remoteness do not apply.
Quek Tiong Kheng and another v Chang Choong Khoon Mark and others [2013] SGHC 36
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' summons for leave to adduce further evidence and appeal against the District Court's decision, noting that the time for review of taxation had expired and the summons was essentially an attempt to re-litigate the case.
Tan Chin Yew Joseph v Saxo Capital Markets Pte Ltd [2013] SGHC 274
The court held that the defendant was not in breach of contract or duty of care in booking funds into the plaintiff's account within 3 minutes and 38 seconds of notification, as the contract expressly allowed up to one business day for such processing.