LITT
Try LITT free
Meyer Erwin v Lerner Brian and Others [2006] SGHC 163
The court has discretion to order security for costs against a foreign plaintiff, but it is not an inflexible rule; the court must weigh all circumstances to determine if it is just to do so.
Kea Meng Kwang and Another v Merrill Lynch Investment Managers (Asia Pacific) Ltd and Others [2006] SGHC 161
The court held that it would not assist a plaintiff in obtaining evidence from abroad via a letter of request where the plaintiff had a more straightforward cause of action available against another party in that foreign jurisdiction, and where the evidence sought was not necessa
PT Muliakeramik Indahraya TBK v Nam Huat Tiling & Panelling Co Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 154
The court held that the overlap between a defence and a counterclaim is a factor to be considered in the exercise of discretion for security for costs, but it is not a decisive or fatal factor.
Chee Siok Chin and Another v Attorney-General [2006] SGHC 153
The court held that the 1991 amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court, which removed the exclusion of defamation and fraud cases from summary judgment procedures, were within the Rules Committee's powers and not unconstitutional.
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Ang Thian Soo [2006] SGHC 147
A guarantor is not automatically bound by a judgment against the principal debtor, but where the guarantor's defence is shadowy and lacks likelihood of success, the court may impose conditions such as payment into court or security for costs as a condition for leave to defend.
UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Others [2006] SGHC 142
In UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co [2006] SGHC 142, the court ruled that while it can order the production of existing documents from a non-party, it will not compel the creation of new handwriting specimens unless a high threshold of reasonable necessity is met.
Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man [2006] SGHC 14
A consent unless order must be clear and unambiguous, and its existence must be ascertained on an objective basis. In the absence of clear evidence of a binding agreement, the court will not treat an order as a consent unless order.
Richland Logistics Services Pte Ltd v Biforst Singapore Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 137
The court has jurisdiction to grant pre-action interrogatories even if the underlying dispute is subject to an arbitration clause, as the arbitration clause does not oust the court's jurisdiction to order such discovery.
Sunny Daisy Ltd v WBG Network (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 130
A judge in chambers hearing a registrar's appeal conducts a rehearing, but must apply the Ladd v Marshall conditions (specifically the second and third conditions) as reasonable conditions for the exercise of discretion to admit fresh evidence.
Front Carriers Ltd v Atlantic & Orient Shipping Corp [2006] SGHC 127
The Singapore High Court set aside a Mareva injunction against Atlantic & Orient Shipping Corp, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove a real risk of asset dissipation and that a parallel, larger injunction in Canada rendered the local Singapore relief unnecessary.
Kanuvunaidu a/l Subramaniam v Goh Chan How [2006] SGHC 126
In Kanuvunaidu a/l Subramaniam v Goh Chan How [2006] SGHC 126, the High Court partially allowed the defendant's appeal on damages. The court denied claims for pre-trial and future loss of earnings, citing the plaintiff's failure to provide credible evidence of mitigation or income loss.
Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd v Sim Kay Teck and Another [2006] SGHC 124
A striking-out order based on a procedural defect (such as failure to show chain of title) where the court has not gone into the merits does not give rise to res judicata or issue estoppel, especially where the court indicated that fresh proceedings could be instituted.
Tan Yow Kon v Tan Swat Ping and Others [2006] SGHC 123
The court held that the Remaining Defendants were necessary or proper parties to the action as they were partners in the firm and the plaintiff's claim was connected to the partnership assets and promises made on behalf of the partners.
Lian Teck Construction Pte Ltd v Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd and Others [2006] SGHC 118
The court held that an application for interim payment under O 29 r 10 of the Rules of Court should not be heard while a stay application is pending, as it would require the defendant to take a step in the proceedings prohibited by s 6(1) of the Arbitration Act.
Brooks, Kenneth Williams v Millar, Christian Gurth Hoyer and Another [2006] SGHC 109
The court refused to grant a mandatory injunction to rectify a share register because the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, as the share issue was necessary to fund ongoing litigation and granting the injunction would cause irreparable harm to the company.
Chin Tyng Lei v Lim Yoon Ngok [2006] SGHC 104
The court held that the defendant was liable for $70,000 of the claim based on his own admission in email correspondence, while granting conditional leave to defend for the balance of $190,000.
S & E Tech Pte Ltd v Western Electric Pacific Ltd and Another [2006] SGHC 10
The court has no power under O 22A r 3(2) of the Rules of Court to allow the withdrawal of an offer to settle before the expiry of the minimum period of 14 days, but the common law doctrine of mistake remains applicable to offers to settle.
Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v Clough Engineering Ltd and Another [2005] SGHC 98
A servant or director of a company acting bona fide within the scope of their authority is not liable for inducing a breach of contract by the company.
Kunal Gobind Lalchandani and Another v Konduri Prakash Murthy [2005] SGHC 94
The court held that an application for extension of time to request further arguments under s 34(1)(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act must be supported by sufficient grounds, and a mere oversight by solicitors is generally insufficient.
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and Others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and Others (No 2) [2005] SGHC 81
The court has the power under O 45 r 7(7) of the Rules of Court to retrospectively dispense with personal service of an order for committal, even for mandatory orders, if it is just to do so.
Sumikin Bussan Corp v Hiew Teck Seng (alias Yaw Teck Seng) and Another [2005] SGHC 76
The deemed closure of pleadings under O 18 r 20 is postponed when the court grants an extension of time to file a reply, thereby extending the time limit for filing a summary judgment application under O 14 r 14.
CHS CPO GmbH (in bankruptcy) and Another v Vikas Goel and Others [2005] SGHC 74
The court held that fortification of an undertaking as to damages for a Mareva injunction or Anton Piller order requires the applicant to demonstrate a sufficient risk of loss, assessed using contractual principles of causation, remoteness, and mitigation.
Standard Chartered Bank v Korea Exchange Bank [2005] SGHC 71
A judge in chambers hearing an appeal from a registrar's decision on summary judgment has the discretion to refuse the admission of fresh evidence if a party has taken its stand on the evidence as it stood before the registrar.
Tung Hui Mannequin Industries v Tenet Insurance Co Ltd and Others [2005] SGHC 69
Case Details * Citation: [2005] SGHC 69 * Case Number: Suit 677/2004, RA 335/2004, 336/2004 * Decision Date: 15 April 2005 * Court: High Court of Singapore * Coram: Judith Prakash J * Judgment Delivered