LITT
Try LITT free
The "Engedi" [2010] SGHC 95
Analysis of [2010] SGHC 95, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2010-03-25.
FAR EAST SQUARE PTE LTD v YAU LEE CONSTRUCTION (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD
The court stayed the suit between Far East Square and Yau Lee Construction, referring the entire dispute to arbitration. It ruled that the validity of Architect’s Certificates involves complex factual inquiries unsuitable for summary determination, reinforcing the preference for arbitration.
Bellezza Club Japan Co Ltd v Matsumura Akihiko and others [2010] SGHC 94
In Bellezza Club Japan Co Ltd v Matsumura Akihiko and others, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure, Conflict of Laws.
AYAZ AHMED & 5 Ors v MUSTAQ AHMAD @ MUSHTAQ AHMAD S/O MUSTAFA & 5 Ors
In AYAZ AHMED & 5 Ors v MUSTAQ AHMAD @ MUSHTAQ AHMAD S/O MUSTAFA & 5 Ors, the High Court (Registrar) addressed issues of .
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.
CHAN POH CHOO v GRANDFORT BUILDERS PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors
In CHAN POH CHOO v GRANDFORT BUILDERS PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors, the High Court (Registrar) addressed issues of .
Sundercan Ltd and another v Salzman Anthony David [2010] SGHC 92
In Sundercan Ltd and another v Salzman Anthony David, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — offer and acceptance.
UJP v UJQ
In UJP v UJQ, the High Court (Family Division) addressed issues of .
Lim Slott v Wong Chiew Huong [2010] SGHC 91
In Lim Slott v Wong Chiew Huong, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family Law.
UFZ v UFY
In UFZ v UFY, the High Court (Family Division) addressed issues of .
Chong Peter (trading as Myths KTV & Disco Pub) v Triple 8 Enterprise Pte Ltd (trading as Mirage Deluxe KTV & Nightclub) [2010] SGHC 9
In Chong Peter (trading as Myths KTV & Disco Pub) v Triple 8 Enterprise Pte Ltd (trading as Mirage Deluxe KTV & Nightclub), the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Trade Marks and Trade names.
UKA v UKB
In UKA v UKB, the High Court (Family Division) addressed issues of .
Public Prosecutor v AGG [2010] SGHC 89
In Public Prosecutor v AGG, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing.
UJR v UJS & 2 Ors
In UJR v UJS & 2 Ors, the High Court (Family Division) addressed issues of .
D'Oz International Pte Ltd v PSB Corp Pte Ltd and another appeal [2010] SGHC 88
In D'Oz International Pte Ltd v PSB Corp Pte Ltd and another appeal, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract, Civil Procedure — Proof of foreign law.
UEB v UEC
In UEB v UEC, the High Court (Family Division) addressed issues of .
Lim Kay Han Irene v Public Prosecutor [2010] SGHC 87
In Lim Kay Han Irene v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal procedure and sentencing.
UJH v UJI
In UJH v UJI, the High Court (Family Division) addressed issues of .
Public Prosecutor v Firdaus bin Abdullah [2010] SGHC 86
In Public Prosecutor v Firdaus bin Abdullah, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing.
UDS v UDR
In UDS v UDR, the High Court (Family Division) addressed issues of .
Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v ANA Contractor Pte Ltd and another [2010] SGHC 85
In Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v ANA Contractor Pte Ltd and another, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Breach, Building and construction law — Contractors' duties.
URU v URV
In URU v URV, the High Court (Family Division) addressed issues of .
Singapore Piling & Civil Engineering Pte Ltd v Kim Teck Corp Pte Ltd and others [2010] SGHC 84
The High Court allowed the defendants' appeal, setting aside orders for pre-action discovery. The court ruled the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable basis for its claim, labeling the broad discovery request a 'fishing expedition' that lacked the necessary justification for court intervention.
TWD & Anor v UQE
The High Court allowed the appeal in TWD & Anor v UQE, ruling that joining an alleged tortfeasor to a Mental Capacity Act deputy application is generally inappropriate. The court held that such joinder creates unnecessary procedural complexity without providing binding protection for the tortfeasor.