LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

Lea Tool and Moulding Industries Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v CGU International Insurance plc (formerly known as Commercial Union Assurance Co plc) [2000] SGHC 241

A default judgment entered for non-compliance with an unless order may be set aside if the judgment is irregular, such as when the non-compliance was not contumelious and the party made positive efforts to comply.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Zaleha Bte Rahman v Chaytor [2000] SGHC 232

Appeals under s 77 of the Women's Charter do not require leave to appeal, and the $50,000 threshold under s 21(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act does not apply to such appeals.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Re Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 215

A winding up petition based on a judgment debt may be properly presented even if an appeal is pending, but the court may stay the petition pending security. Costs are discretionary and may be apportioned based on the timing of the stay and the conduct of the parties.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Hsiang Ding Enterprise Co Ltd v Singasia Investments Pte Ltd (formerly known as Shinkeikin Aluminium (Pte) Limited) [2000] SGHC 214

The court held that Singapore was the appropriate forum for the dispute because the defendants were a Singapore-registered company and the parties had agreed that Singapore law would govern the contract.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

The Owners of the Ships or Vessels "Ah Lam II" and "Pu 1804" v The Owners of the Ship or Vessel "Bonito" [2000] SGHC 210

An extension of time for a procedural step should generally be granted if the delay causes no prejudice to the other party that cannot be compensated by costs, especially where the denial would deprive a party of their right to have the merits of their claim determined.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit (No 2) [2000] SGHC 199

Case Details * Citation: [2000] SGHC 199 * Case Number: Suit 862/1998 * Decision Date: 29 September 2000 * Court: High Court of Singapore * Coram: Woo Bih Li JC * Judgment Delivered By: Woo Bih Li

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Lee Hiok Tng and Another v Lee Hiok Tng (in his personal capacity) and Others [2000] SGHC 192

The court held that the issue of ownership of the 27 OUB shares had already been conclusively decided in previous proceedings (the Consolidated Suit) and that the current application was an abuse of process and barred by res judicata and issue estoppel.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Industrial & Commercial Bank Limited v Banco Ambrosiano Veneto S.P.A. [2000] SGHC 188

An allegation that a contract is void ab initio does not invalidate a jurisdiction clause within that contract until a final judgment of the court is reached.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

MeesPierson NV v Bay Pacific (S) Pte Ltd and Others [2000] SGHC 168

In MeesPierson NV v Bay Pacific (S) Pte Ltd, the High Court dismissed the bank's claim for restitution, ruling that a bank cannot recover funds paid under a letter of credit for forged documents if the presenter is innocent, emphasizing strict adherence to UCP 500 contractual obligations.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Luis Chang Soh v Comwealth Investments & Trading Pte Ltd [2000] SGHC 16

The court granted a stay of proceedings in favour of a pending foreign action in Paris, applying the principle of forum non conveniens, as the plaintiff was found to be abusing the court process by initiating multiple actions to avoid the foreign jurisdiction.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Changhe International Investments Pte Ltd (fka Druidstone Pte Ltd) v Banque International A Luxembourg Bil (Asia) Ltd [2000] SGHC 158

An assistant registrar lacks jurisdiction to vary or overturn the order of another assistant registrar; the proper course for a party aggrieved by such an order is to file an appeal.

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Thakral Brothers (Private) Ltd and Others [2000] SGHC 153

In Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Thakral Brothers (Private) Ltd [2000] SGHC 153, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, ruling that the defendants' Anton Piller-style order took priority. The case clarifies the timing requirements for creditor priority under the Debtors Act.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Leong Mei Chuan v David Chan Texk Hock [2000] SGHC 150

The court held that an application to amend a notice of appeal that effectively seeks to appeal against a part of a decision out of time must satisfy the requirements for extending time for filing a notice of appeal, including considering the length of delay, reasons for delay, c

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Chua Choon Lim Robert v MN Swami and Others [2000] SGHC 144

The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to prevent the initiation of civil proceedings which are vexatious, frivolous or likely to constitute an abuse of the process of court, including the power to make an order prohibiting new proceedings without leave of the court.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

MFH Marine Pte Ltd v Asmoniah bin Mohamad [2000] SGHC 141

The court held that the statutory prohibition in the Workmen's Compensation Act against commencing civil action while a compensation claim is pending does not suspend the running of the limitation period for the civil action.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Kim Hok Yung and Others v Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA (trading as Rabobank) (Lee Mon Sun, Third Party) [2000] SGHC 134

A claim founded on the tort of deceit must give full particulars of the basis for the averment or else it must be struck out. A claim that is intrinsically weak and hopeless may be struck out as frivolous and vexatious.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

MIRAE ASSET DAEWOO CO., LTD. v SNG ZHIWEI, JOEL (SUN ZHIWEI, JOEL)

A defendant cannot rely on a bare assertion of a triable issue to defeat a summary judgment application; the defence must be credible and consistent with contemporaneous documents.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

ENGINEERING CENTRE OF INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTIONS AND CONCRETE v EFE (S.E.A.) PTE. LTD. & Anor

Summary judgment is appropriate where the defendant fails to raise a triable issue or bona fide defence, and where factual assertions are inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

GOH KOK LIANG (WU GUO LIANG) v GYP PROPERTIES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GLOBAL YELLOW PAGES LIMITED) & Anor

An offer to settle that is framed as an offer to 'settle this proceeding' is intended to settle the whole of the proceeding, including any claims for costs.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Glassberg, Jonathan William v UBS AG, Singapore Branch [2022] SGHC 314

The court struck out contract claims because the plaintiff failed to establish that the specific investment services (APA Service) were engaged for the investment in question, and the investment was outside the bank's investment universe.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Yong Khong Yoong Mark and others v Ting Choon Meng and another [2022] SGHC 4

In Yong Khong Yoong Mark and others v Ting Choon Meng and another, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Costs.

Sushant Shukla· ·10 min read
Singapore

Zhou Wenjing v Shun Heng Credit Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 313

In Zhou Wenjing v Shun Heng Credit Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Appeals.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

Leong Quee Ching Karen v Lim Soon Huat and others [2022] SGHC 309

In Leong Quee Ching Karen v Lim Soon Huat and others, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Pleadings, Companies — Oppression.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore

The court held that communications sent by a third party (MOE) on behalf of a defendant to a plaintiff, which constitute a genuine attempt to resolve a dispute, are protected by 'without prejudice' privilege, even if not expressly marked as such.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read