LITT
Try LITT free
Re: SYED SALIM ALHADAD SYED AHMAD ALHADAD
An application for leave to intervene under O 15 r 6(2) of the Rules of Court must be made while the proceedings are still pending; it cannot be granted after the proceedings have concluded and a final order has been made.
THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE v SUM CHONG MUN & Anor
Advocates and solicitors acting as certificate issuers for a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPOA) have non-delegable duties to personally explain the LPOA to the donor and personally witness the donor's signature; failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct.
Bintai Kindenko Private Limited v Samsung C&T Corporation
An adjudicator's failure to consider important issues that have been pleaded and flagged as important in dispute constitutes a breach of natural justice, rendering the adjudication determination liable to be set aside.
SIN HERH CONSTRUCTION PTE LTD v HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD & Anor
The court held that the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case of unconscionability to restrain a call on a performance bond, and that an Erinford Order was not justified as the potential prejudice to the applicant in securing future projects was not related to t
SUN ELECTRIC PTE. LTD. v SUNSEAP GROUP PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors
The High Court ruled that it lacks original jurisdiction to hear patent revocation proceedings or grant revocation orders via counterclaims in infringement suits. This decision clarifies procedural boundaries between the High Court and the Registrar of Patents.
ZERO GERALDO MARIO NALPON v LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE
The court held that the applicant failed to account for the delay in filing the application for leave for judicial review to the court's satisfaction, and further failed to establish an arguable case for judicial review.
LQS CONSTRUCTION PTE LTD v MENCAST MARINE PTE LTD & Anor
An applicant for an ex parte injunction has a duty of full and frank disclosure; failure to disclose material facts justifies the discharge of the injunction. Furthermore, mere contractual disputes do not meet the high threshold of unconscionability required to restrain a call on
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Gobi A/L Avedian
The court held that the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA can be rebutted if the accused provides a credible account, on a balance of probabilities, that they believed the substance was something other than the controlled drug charged.
ZELEENAH BEGUM v KK WOMEN'S & CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL PTE LTD TRADING AS KK WOMEN'S & CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
The court held that proceedings are deemed discontinued under O 21 r 2(6) of the Rules of Court if no step is taken for more than one year, and the court refused to reinstate the action.
OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED v SALIM BIN SAID
Order 46 r 2(1)(a) of the Rules of Court is a procedural rule for monitoring enforcement of judgments after six years, not a substantive limitation period. Leave to issue execution is discretionary and requires the judgment creditor to provide cogent reasons for delay.
UDF v UDG
The court refused to grant interim access orders for a father to see his teenage daughter in the US or to bring her to Singapore for summer vacation, prioritising the child's expressed wishes and her need for stability during a transition period in her education.
CHEW ENG HAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court held that the criminal reference mechanism under s 397 of the CPC cannot be used as a backdoor appeal, and that leave will generally not be granted where the matter has already been determined by a three-Judge coram of the High Court.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL v TING CHOON MENG
The Court of Appeal held that s 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 applies only to natural persons and not to the Government or corporate entities.
R.G.A. HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL INC v LOH CHOON PHING ROBIN & Anor
An interim prohibitory injunction will normally be granted to restrain the breach of a negative covenant in a contract, and the court is not concerned with the balance of convenience or the adequacy of damages in such cases.
TRISURYO GARUDA NUSA PTE. LTD. v SKP SENABANGUN (SOUTH) SDN. BERHAD & Anor
The court held that Singapore was the appropriate forum for the dispute as the governing law of the trust agreement was Singapore law, and the parties had deliberately chosen Singapore as the place of incorporation for the special purpose vehicle.
CHUA PENG HO v SARAVANAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM AS DEPENDENT OF THE ESTATE OF LINGASWARI A/P KOUSHANAN (DECEASED) & 3 Ors
The extraction of an interlocutory judgment constitutes a 'step or proceeding' for the purposes of O 21 r 2(6) of the Rules of Court, and such a step does not need to move the action forward towards resolution.
Wilson Taylor Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Dyna-Jet Pte Ltd
An arbitration agreement conferring an asymmetric right to elect whether to arbitrate a future dispute is a valid arbitration agreement, but the dispute must fall within the scope of the agreement as defined by the election.
VINOD KUMAR RAMGOPAL DIDWANIA v HAUSLAB DESIGN & BUILD PTE LTD
An applicant seeking to set aside an adjudication determination must establish the grounds for doing so on a balance of probabilities, not merely by raising an arguable case.
Ho Heng Leng (alias Foo Chee Kai) v Lodge, Kenneth George (litigation representative and administrator of the estate of Lodge, Vivien (alias Vivien Tsuji), deceased) (Lim Soon Wah Thomas, third party) [2017] SGHC 96
The court held that the plaintiff had proven on a balance of probabilities that the funds advanced to the deceased were a loan rather than a gift, and thus the estate was liable for repayment.
Ong Teck Soon (executor of the estate of Ong Kim Nang, deceased) v Ong Teck Seng and another [2017] SGHC 95
The legal burden of proof lies on the defendant to prove that the disposal of assets was authorised by the Testator when the defendant admits to dealing with the assets but pleads authorisation as a defence.
Benber Dayao Yu v Jacter Singh [2017] SGHC 92
The court held that the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) applies to online conduct and that the 'reasonable conduct' defence requires more than just having a personal viewpoint; it must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances.
Public Prosecutor v Abdul Wahid Bin Ismail [2017] SGHC 87
The court held that the accused was guilty of trafficking in diamorphine and, in the absence of a certificate of substantive assistance from the Public Prosecutor, the mandatory death penalty must be imposed.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v DealStreetAsia Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 74
Pre-action disclosure requires the applicant to show that the order is both necessary and just, with necessity assessed by whether the plaintiff lacks sufficient knowledge to fashion a viable claim.
TT International Ltd v Ho Lee Construction Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 62
Clause 31.4(2) of the PSSCOC exhaustively sets out the sums recoverable upon termination for convenience, and does not permit the recovery of loss of profits for uncompleted work.