LITT
Try LITT free
United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Lee Lip Hiong and Others [2004] SGHC 190
The time limit for filing a summary judgment application under O 14 r 14 of the Rules of Court is an absolute time bar that cannot be extended by the court or by consent of the parties, and amendments to pleadings do not postpone the deemed closure of pleadings.
Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and Others (No 5) [2004] SGHC 188
The High Court hearing an appeal against a registrar’s decision can only rely on the papers filed and/or admitted before the registrar; documents brought into chambers but not formally admitted are not part of the record of appeal.
Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG and Others [2004] SGHC 187
The court has inherent jurisdiction to clarify its own orders even after they are pronounced, and the principle of functus officio does not prevent the court from correcting minor oversights or clarifying terms.
Joshua Steven v Joshua Deborah Steven and Others (No 2) [2004] SGHC 184
An amendment to pleadings at the end of a trial will not be allowed if it introduces a distinct defence that would require further cross-examination and prejudice the other party, especially when the litigation could have been conducted efficiently from the start.
Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 182
Silence can be unequivocal evidence of acceptance in a landlord-tenant relationship where the parties' conduct, objectively ascertained, supports the existence of a contract.
Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte Ltd v Projector SA [2004] SGHC 179
The court discharged an interim mandatory injunction because the underlying necessity for the injunction had disappeared as security had been deposited, while reserving the determination of damages and costs to the trial judge.
Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd v Rankine and Hill (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 178
The court held that an action in negligence should be commenced by way of a writ of summons rather than an originating summons when particulars of negligence and damage are required. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove damage, which is a necessary elem
RBG Resources plc (in liquidation) v Banque Cantonale Vaudoise and Others [2004] SGHC 170
A party cannot use an application for leave to appeal to seek a variation of a costs order based on an issue that should be raised in a respondent's case under the Rules of Court.
Joshua Steven v Joshua Deborah Steven and Others [2004] SGHC 166
The court held that the alleged trust failed for lack of the three certainties (intention, subject matter, and objects) and that the defendants could not introduce a new claim of proprietary estoppel after the trial had concluded.
Johnson Pacific Pte Ltd v Hogberg Fred Rickard Robin William and Others [2004] SGHC 163
The court held that particulars of pleading should be provided to inform the other side of the case they have to meet, but requests for particulars that are excessive, harassing, or oppressive will be disallowed.
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Other Applications [2004] SGHC 155
The High Court allowed APBS's appeal, setting aside pre-action discovery orders. The court ruled that mere relevance is insufficient; applicants must demonstrate that disclosure is 'necessary' for fair disposal or cost-saving, rejecting the banks' attempt at broad, speculative discovery.
United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Lee Lip Hiong and Others [2004] SGHC 153
The High Court does not have the power to extend time for the filing of an O 14 application outside the period of limitation prescribed by O 14 r 14, as O 14 r 14 is a written law relating to limitation.
The "MMM Diana" ex "Able Director" [2004] SGHC 152
A registrar has jurisdiction to hear an application for an extension of time to comply with an 'unless order' and to set aside a default judgment obtained pursuant to such an order.
XACCT Technologies Ltd v Orient Telecommunication Networks Pte Ltd formerly known as Orient Telecommunication Networks (Singapore) Pte Ltd and formerly known as XA Alliance Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 144
In XACCT Technologies Ltd v Orient Telecommunication Networks Pte Ltd formerly known as Orient Telecommunication Networks (Singapore) Pte Ltd and formerly known as XA Alliance Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Discovery of documents.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2297 v Seasons Park Ltd [2004] SGHC 142
Discovery of documents is governed by O 24 r 1(2) of the Rules of Court, where documents are discoverable if they could adversely affect or support a party's case, provided they are necessary for disposing fairly of the matter.
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Ding Pei Chai and Others [2004] SGHC 140
In Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Ding Pei Chai [2004] SGHC 140, the court upheld an informal agreement regarding corporate control, exercising equitable jurisdiction to preserve disputed funds despite a lack of formal procedural compliance under the company's articles of association.
Stone Forest Consulting Pte Ltd v Wee Poh Holdings Ltd [2004] SGHC 134
A board resolution of a company acknowledging services rendered and undertaking to pay fees constitutes a clear admission of liability, precluding the company from raising unmeritorious defences in summary judgment proceedings.
Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and Others (No 5) [2004] SGHC 131
The court held that in an inquiry into estate assets, the evidential burden of proof lies with the party asserting the existence of an asset, and the court will not draw adverse inferences without specific evidence.
Lion City Holdings Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Jumabhoy Asad and Others [2004] SGHC 130
The court held that an amendment to a writ to add a new cause of action will not be allowed if it would defeat a limitation defence, unless the new cause of action arises out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim.
Cheong Ghim Fah and Another v Murugian s/o Rangasamy (No 2) [2004] SGHC 125
In Cheong Ghim Fah v Murugian s/o Rangasamy [2004] SGHC 125, the court affirmed the plaintiffs' right to initiate proceedings in the High Court, ruling they met the statutory criteria under the Subordinate Courts Act. Costs were awarded on the High Court scale, emphasizing proper forum selection.
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and Others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and Others [2004] SGHC 115
The court held that the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means is actionable in Singapore, and that the unlawful means need not be actionable at the suit of the claimant.
Afro-Asia Shipping Co (Pte) Ltd v Da Zhong Investment Pte Ltd and Others (No 2) [2004] SGHC 105
The court held that a defendant who elects not to call evidence is not liable for the plaintiff's costs of preparing for cross-examination, as such preparation is a basic part of trial preparation. However, a defendant may be liable for hearing fees thrown away if they fail to no
Ho Kian Cheong v Ho Kian Guan and Others [2004] SGHC 104
The court held that the doctrine of functus officio did not apply to an interlocutory application where no substantive order had been made, and that res judicata estoppel does not apply to the dismissal of an interlocutory application.
Sumio Sakata and Others v Fuminori Paul Naruse and Others [2004] SGHC 102
The court held that orders for security for costs should not be disturbed on appeal unless in exceptional circumstances, and that a change of solicitors by a defendant does not automatically justify an increase in the total security for costs ordered.