LITT
Try LITT free
Motorola Solutions Credit Co LLC v Kemal Uzan and others [2015] SGHC 228
Common interest privilege cannot be waived by one recipient in a common interest group for other members without their agreement or authority.
Loo Pei Xiang Alan v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGHC 217
The quantity of drugs trafficked is a primary determinant in sentencing, even for repeat offenders, and sentencing judges should avoid double-counting antecedents already accounted for in mandatory minimum sentencing regimes.
Lim Kok Wah and others v Lim Boh Yong and others and other matters [2015] SGHC 211
The judgment in [2015] SGHC 211 represents a significant exploration of the boundaries between procedural corporate irregularities and the statutory remedy for minority oppression under s 216 of the Companies Act . The dispute centered on a fractured family dynamic within two Sin
Lim Giok Boon and another v Lim Geok Cheng [2015] SGHC 208
The case establishes that a resulting trust arises from direct contributions to the purchase price of property, but not from subsequent mortgage payments or loans, unless there was a prior agreement.
I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting and others [2015] SGHC 153
The court held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the release of confidential information obtained during discovery for the purpose of making a police report, as it would be unduly prejudicial to the defendants.
Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd and others [2015] SGHC 145
An applicant for leave to commence a statutory derivative action under s 216A of the Companies Act must satisfy the court that it is acting in good faith. An applicant who pursues a derivative action for a collateral purpose, such as advancing its own private interests rather tha
Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 141
A party challenging an adjudication determination under the SOPA must comply with the statutory requirement to provide security for the unpaid adjudicated amount, even if the application is framed as a request for a declaration rather than a formal setting-aside application.
AYY v AYZ and another [2015] SGHCR 22
A stay of arbitration under section 10(9)(a) of the International Arbitration Act will generally be ordered if an applicant demonstrates that a refusal of stay would result in detriment that cannot be adequately restituted by a costs order.
Newcon Builders Pte Ltd v Sino New Steel Pte Ltd [2015] SGHCR 13
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction in setting aside an adjudication determination is limited to ensuring the adjudicator was validly appointed and that the process adhered to mandatory statutory requirements; it does not extend to reviewing the merits of the adjudicator's
Harjit Kaur d/o Kulwant Singh v Saroop Singh a/l Amar Singh [2015] SGHCF 5
The court held that leave to apply for financial relief under s 121D of the Women's Charter requires the applicant to show a 'substantial' or 'solid' case, and the court must respect the comity of nations by not re-opening matters already settled by a competent foreign court.
TAU v TAV [2015] SGHCF 2
The court held that the learned District Judge's orders regarding the division of matrimonial assets were just and equitable, particularly in light of the wife's non-monetary contributions and the needs of the children.
AYY v AYZ and another
A stay of arbitration under section 10(9)(a) of the International Arbitration Act will generally be ordered if an applicant demonstrates that a refusal of stay would result in detriment that could not be adequately restituted by a costs order.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v Cuffz (Singapore) Pte Ltd
The court awarded $35,000 in statutory damages for trade mark infringement under section 31(5)(c) of the Trade Mark Act, considering factors such as flagrancy, deterrence, and the defendant's uncooperative conduct.
TAU v TAV
The court held that the District Judge's orders regarding the division of matrimonial assets were just and equitable, particularly in ensuring the needs of the children for a home were met, and thus dismissed the appeal.
Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals
The court held that a dispute over minority oppression or unfairly prejudicial conduct under s 216 of the Companies Act is arbitrable, and that a court should adopt a prima facie standard of review when hearing a stay application under s 6 of the IAA.
V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and another
A court should not decide a case on an unpleaded cause of action if it causes irreparable prejudice to the other party that cannot be compensated by costs.
Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd
The SMC Rules prescribing office hours for the lodgement of documents are not ultra vires the SOPA, and timelines under the SOPA must be strictly complied with.
IVAN CHIN v H P CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING PTE LTD
An Architect's certificate issued under the SIA Conditions loses its temporary finality if it is tainted by fraud or not issued in accordance with the contract, and the court cannot sever or adjust such a certificate.
Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2015] SGCA 57
A dispute over minority oppression or unfairly prejudicial conduct under s 216 of the Companies Act is arbitrable, and the court should adopt a prima facie standard of review when hearing a stay application under s 6 of the IAA.
V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and another [2015] SGCA 56
A court is not entitled to decide a suit on a matter on which no issue has been raised by the parties, and it is improper for a court to displace the case made by a party in its pleadings and give effect to an entirely new case which the party had not made out in its own pleading
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General [2015] SGCA 53
The Public Prosecutor's decision not to grant a certificate of substantive assistance under s 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act is reviewable on grounds of bad faith, malice, or unconstitutionality, but the applicant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of reaso
Global Tobacco Manufacturers (International) Sdn Bhd v Jamal Abdulnaser Mahmoud Al Mahamid [2015] SGCA 51
The court held that evidence of actual confusion is not a necessary element of the cause of action for trademark invalidation, and that a high degree of similarity between marks and identical goods is sufficient to infer a likelihood of confusion.
Seah Teong Kang (co-executor of the will of Lee Koon, deceased) and another v Seah Yong Chwan (executor of the estate of Seah Eng Teow) [2015] SGCA 48
A specific testamentary gift of shares in a company in winding up does not fail for want of compliance with s 259 of the Companies Act, as the equitable interest in the shares passes to the legatee upon the executor's assent, which constitutes a transmission rather than a transfe
Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore [2015] SGCA 41
There is no absolute duty on the court to provide written grounds of decision for every interlocutory hearing; the duty to provide reasons is measured against a standard of explanation corresponding to the requirements of the case.