LITT
Try LITT free
Nirumalan V Kanapathi Pillay v Teo Eng Chuan [2003] SGHC 96
The court held that pre-trial interest on damages is discretionary and may be diminished if the plaintiff is slow to prosecute the case, as the defendant has not kept the plaintiff out of his money.
Nganthavee Teriya alias Gan Hui Poo v Ang Yee Lim Lawrence and Others (Lim Eng Hock Peter and Another, Third Parties) [2003] SGHC 86
A tortfeasor cannot claim contribution from a co-tortfeasor under s 11 of the Civil Law Act if doing so would allow the tortfeasor to retain part of the benefits derived from their own wrongful conduct.
Sincere Watch Limited v Bakery Mart Pte Ltd (Ng Yew Hong, Third Party) [2003] SGHC 85
A loan repayable on demand is liable to be garnished without the need for a prior demand by the judgment debtor on the garnishee.
Span Pacific Corporation v ASP Crew Management Ltd and Others [2003] SGHC 84
A plaintiff resident abroad is not automatically required to provide security for costs; the court considers the likelihood of success and the conduct of the parties.
Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan [2003] SGHC 79
In Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Pleadings, Civil Procedure — Summary judgment.
Ng Sing King and Others v PSA International Pte Ltd and Others [2003] SGHC 59
The court held that it is an abuse of process to join a non-member or non-shareholder in a section 216 Companies Act action where no remedy is sought against them.
Sincere Watch Limited v Bakery Mart Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 50
The court held that where restructuring discussions stopped short of agreed terms and an executed agreement, the defendant should not have unconditional leave to defend a summary judgment application.
Publicis Group SA v Chong Hon Kuan Ivan [2003] SGHC 41
An originating summons is not an appropriate process where there is a dispute regarding essential facts which cannot be resolved on the basis of affidavits; in such cases, the court may order the proceedings to continue as if they had been begun by writ.
Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH v Hugo Boss AG [2003] SGHC 4
The court held that a certificate of service issued by judicial authorities is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging service to prove non-service on a balance of probabilities.
Tan Yeow Khoon and Another v Tan Yeow Tat and Others [2003] SGHC 36
The court held that the plaintiffs were estopped from re-litigating the issue of the valuation of the property as the matter was res judicata, having been the subject of previous litigation and a consent order.
Tan Whei Tet Valerie v James Johnbritto [2003] SGHC 34
In Tan Whei Tet Valerie v James Johnbritto, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Appeals.
Wee Soon Kim Anthony v The Law Society of Singapore (Davinder Singh and another, proposed interveners, Third Party) (No 5) [2003] SGHC 32
A party claiming costs must justify the claim with adequate information and documentary evidence; a party should not claim a high figure in the hope of being allowed a percentage of it.
Tan Seow Cheng v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd [2003] SGHC 30
The court held that a plaintiff must provide material particulars, such as the identity of the person who made the alleged remarks, in the Statement of Claim to enable the defendant to prepare for trial, and cannot rely on 'best of knowledge' as a substitute for such particulars.
Vadivel Ramesh and Another v Aegis Equipment Pte Ltd and Another [2003] SGHC 3
A workman who has filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot maintain a common law action for damages against his employer unless the compensation claim is first withdrawn.
Societe Generale v Tai Kee Sing @ Tai Hean Sing [2003] SGHC 296
The Singapore High Court affirmed a summary judgment in favour of Societe Generale, rejecting the defendant's claims of contract illegality under Malaysian law and alleged failures in collateral management. The court upheld the choice of Singapore law and the creditor's discretion on sale timing.
Hua Sheng Tao v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd and Another and Another Application [2003] SGHC 28
The 'amount in dispute' for the purpose of s 21(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act refers to the amount claimed by the plaintiff at first instance, not the judgment sum awarded by the trial judge.
Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp [2003] SGHC 276
A company's residency for the purpose of security for costs is determined by the 'central management and control' test, and the mere presence of a registered branch in the jurisdiction is insufficient to establish residency.
Tan Soo Giem v Yeo Ching Chua [2003] SGHC 264
A Subordinate Court has jurisdiction to extend the time to file for leave to appeal to itself under O 55D r 4(2) and r (3) of the Rules of Court.
LK Ang Construction Pte Ltd v Chubb Singapore Pte Ltd (judgment on costs) [2003] SGHC 263
An offer to settle does not automatically withdraw a previous offer unless expressly stated. The court must determine favourability of a judgment sum inclusive of costs against an offer inclusive of costs, which may require taxation.
AD v AE [2003] SGHC 258
In AD v AE, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Appeals.
American Express Bank Ltd v Abdul Manaff bin Ahmad and Another and Other Appeals [2003] SGHC 256
Section 13(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) exempts the wages and salary of a judgment debtor from garnishment.
The Melati [2003] SGHC 254
The court held that the failure to serve a Statement of Claim on time and without leave is an irregularity under Order 2 r 1, which does not nullify the proceedings, and that the court has the power to extend time for service.
Velstra Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Dexia Bank Belgium [2003] SGHC 253
The court has discretion to stay civil proceedings where there are concurrent criminal proceedings, but the burden is on the applicant to show a real danger of prejudice.
Hua Seng Sawmill Co Bhd v QBE Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd [2003] SGHC 233
In Hua Seng Sawmill Co Bhd v QBE Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd, the High Court dismissed the claim, ruling that cargo lost due to improper stowage did not fall under the insured peril of 'washing overboard.' The court emphasized the assured's burden to prove loss via a specific insured peril.