LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

Tan Chin Seng and Others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (No 2) [2002] SGHC 110

Discovery will not be ordered for documents that are not relevant to the pleaded issues or that are sought solely for cross-examination as to credit.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

CSR South East Asia Pte Ltd (formerly known as CSR Bradford Insulation (S) Pte Ltd) v Sunrise Insulation Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 106

A default judgment entered for a sum that fails to account for a cheque received and retained by the creditor is irregular and must be set aside ex debito justitiae.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka [2002] SGHC 104

In WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka, the High Court discharged a prohibitive injunction, ruling that the balance of convenience favored the Defendants because the perishable nature of broadcast rights constituted irreparable harm not compensable by damages alone.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Central Bank of India v Hemant Govindprasad Bansal & Ors [2002] SGHC 102

A defendant who elects not to adduce evidence in their defence after a prima facie case has been established by the plaintiff will be liable if the evidence supports the essential limbs of the claim.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Barang Barang Pte Ltd v Boey Ng San and Others [2002] SGHC 101

An application under O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court is only suitable if the question of construction can be achieved without a full trial and such a determination will fully determine the entire cause of the matter.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Koh Ewe Chee v Koh Hua Leong and Another [2002] SGHC 100

A 'liberty to apply' order is a judicial device intended to supplement main orders for form and convenience, not to vary or change their substance.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Central Bank of India v Hemant Govindprasad Bansal and others and other actions [2002] SGHC 1

In Central Bank of India v Hemant Govindprasad Bansal [2002] SGHC 1, the High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding the defendants liable for conversion and as constructive trustees. The court rejected the defendants' 'no case to answer' submission, awarding over US$1.4M in damages.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Pandian Marimuthu v Guan Leong Construction Pte Ltd [2001] SGHC 96

The court held that security for costs should not be ordered simply because a plaintiff is a foreigner without assets in the jurisdiction, especially when the claim has a high probability of success.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

S3 Building Services Pte Ltd v Sky Technology Pte Ltd [2001] SGHC 87

The court held that an extension of time for procedural compliance should generally be granted unless the default causes prejudice to the opponent that cannot be compensated by an award of costs.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Hitachi Leasing (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Vincent Ambrose and Another [2001] SGHC 76

A post-judgment Mareva injunction cannot be granted against an HDB flat because the flat is immune from execution under s 51(3) of the Housing and Development Act, and there was no evidence of dissipation.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Ho Kon Kim v Betsy Lim Gek Kim and Others [2001] SGHC 75

A solicitor may be held personally liable for costs under O 58 r 8 of the Rules of Court if they pursue litigation that amounts to an abuse of process or serious negligence.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Tan Boon Hai v Singapore Hainan Hwee Kuan [2001] SGHC 63

A judge reviewing a taxing officer's decision on costs has the power to hear the matter de novo and exercise their own discretion, rather than being fettered by the taxing officer's decision.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Lum Kai Heng v Quek Peng Chai and Others [2001] SGHC 61

General allegations of fraud, malice, and conspiracy in pleadings are insufficient without specific particulars, and amendments to pleadings should only be allowed if they are material to the real question in controversy.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Chua Lam alias Chua Loo v Peh Kwee Tee [2001] SGHC 55

The court held that a consent order should be interpreted according to its plain meaning without extrinsic evidence if unambiguous, and that the court should not rewrite the terms of the agreement.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Lee Kuan Yew v Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam [2001] SGHC 52

An action for want of prosecution will not be dismissed unless the court is satisfied that the default was intentional and contumelious, or that there was inordinate and inexcusable delay causing serious prejudice to the defendant.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Malayan Banking Berhad v Measurex Engineering Pte Ltd and Another [2001] SGHC 5

A jurisdiction clause that does not explicitly state it is 'exclusive' must be construed based on its own terms and context; the presence of a clause requiring the appointment of an agent for service of process in the forum (Singapore) supports the conclusion that the parties con

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Praptono Honggopati Tjitrohupojo and Others v His Royal Highness Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj [2001] SGHC 380

A stay of proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens is granted where the court is satisfied that another forum is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, considering factors such as the location of witnesses, the governing law of the transaction, and the res

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Yugiantoro v Budiono Widodo [2001] SGHC 349

A defendant seeking a stay of proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens bears the burden of establishing that there is another available forum which is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than the Singapore forum.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Kian Wah Hung (Private) Limited v William Interior Design [2001] SGHC 332

The court held that the factors for extending time to file a Notice of Appeal (as set out in Hau Khee Wee) apply equally to applications for extending time to file or serve the Record of Appeal, as the respondent acquires a final judgment right once the time for appeal expires.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

PT Kiani Kertas v PT Indorimagas Pratama and Others [2001] SGHC 330

The court held that a preliminary issue involving both questions of law and fact should not be tried separately if it would not result in a substantial saving of time and expenditure, and if the facts are inextricably linked with other issues in the case.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Lam Soon Oil and Soap Manufacturing Sdn Bhd & Another v Whang Tar Choung & Another [2001] SGHC 318

The court refused an application to amend the Defence to include limitation and laches defences on the eve of trial, citing undue delay and prejudice to the fair trial process, particularly given the advanced age of the parties.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Lam Soon Oil and Soap Manufacturing Sdn Bhd and Another v Whang Tar Choung and Another [2001] SGHC 317

The court refused to allow an amendment to the defence to plead limitation and laches on the eve of trial, where the defendant had been aware of these issues for a significant period and had pleaded them in parallel foreign proceedings, as allowing the amendment would cause undue

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Lam Seng Hang Co Pte Ltd v The Insurance Corporation of Singapore Ltd [2001] SGHC 31

Leave to appeal against a district court decision where the claim amount is below the statutory threshold will only be granted if the applicant demonstrates a serious and important issue of law, a prima facie case of error, or a question of general principle of public importance.

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Singapore

Ong Tean Hoe v Hong Kong Industrial Company Private Limited [2001] SGHC 303

When an appeal court reviews the quantification of damages by a lower court, it should not disturb the award unless the lower court failed to exercise its discretion properly or applied incorrect principles, and the difference between the award and what the appeal judge considers

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read