LITT
Try LITT free
The "Orinoco Star" [2014] SGHCR 19
Analysis of [2014] SGHCR 19, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2014-08-06.
The "Chem Orchid" [2014] SGHCR 1
Analysis of [2014] SGHCR 1, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2014-01-06.
The "Turtle Bay" [2013] SGHC 165
Analysis of [2013] SGHC 165, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2013-08-30.
Valency International Pte Ltd v JSW International Tradecorp Pte Ltd and others and another appeal [2026] SGCA 1
In Valency International Pte Ltd v JSW International Tradecorp Pte Ltd and others and another appeal, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Tort — Conversion, Admiralty and Shipping — Bills of lading.
The "Genius Star II" [2013] SGHCR 23
Analysis of [2013] SGHCR 23, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2013-10-17.
The "Pontianak Caraka Jaya Niaga III-34" [2012] SGHC 176
Analysis of [2012] SGHC 176, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2012-08-29.
The "Makassar Caraka Jaya Niaga III-39" [2012] SGHC 175
Analysis of [2012] SGHC 175, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2012-08-29.
The "Oriental Baltic" [2011] SGHC 75
Analysis of [2011] SGHC 75, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2011-03-30.
The "Dolphina" [2011] SGHC 273
Analysis of [2011] SGHC 273, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2011-12-30.
The "Sahand" and other applications [2011] SGHC 27
Analysis of [2011] SGHC 27, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2011-01-31.
The "Bunga Melati 5" [2011] SGHC 195
Analysis of [2011] SGHC 195, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2011-08-23.
The "Eagle Prestige" [2010] SGHC 93
Analysis of [2010] SGHC 93, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2010-03-23.
The "Pontianak Caraka Jaya Niaga III-34" [2010] SGHC 314
Analysis of [2010] SGHC 314, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2010-10-25.
The "Makassar Caraka Jaya Niaga III-39" [2010] SGHC 313
Analysis of [2010] SGHC 313, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2010-10-25.
The "Pontianak Caraka Jaya Niaga III-34" [2010] SGHC 307
The court held that the vessel was beneficially owned by the respondent, and thus the arrest was valid, but affirmed the stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration.
The "Makassar Caraka Jaya Niaga III-39" [2010] SGHC 306
Analysis of [2010] SGHC 306, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2010-10-19.
The "Genius Star II"
Non-disclosure of material facts in an ex parte application for a warrant of arrest is an independent ground for setting aside the warrant. The test for materiality is objective, requiring the applicant to disclose facts that the court might deem relevant, not just what the appli
The "Shen Ming Hong 7" [2010] SGHC 269
Analysis of [2010] SGHC 269, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2010-09-09.
Subiaco (S) Pte Ltd v Baker Hughes Singapore Pte (trading as Baker Hughes Inteq) [2010] SGHC 265
In Subiaco (S) Pte Ltd v Baker Hughes Singapore Pte (trading as Baker Hughes Inteq), the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Admiralty and Shipping.
Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd v The "Bunga Melati 5" [2010] SGHC 193
In Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd v The "Bunga Melati 5", the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Admiralty and Shipping, Agency.
The "Catur Samudra" [2010] SGHC 18
Analysis of [2010] SGHC 18, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2010-01-15.
The "Asia Star" [2008] SGHC 92
Analysis of [2008] SGHC 92, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2008-06-05.
The "Duden" [2008] SGHC 149
Analysis of [2008] SGHC 149, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2008-09-09.
Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd v Heroic Warrior Inc. [2019] SGHC 143
In Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd v Heroic Warrior Inc. [2019] SGHC 143, the High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on negligence but limited damages due to insufficient proof of payment, emphasizing the strict evidentiary burden required to substantiate consequential loss claims.