LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

Lim Oon Kuin and others v Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and another matter [2023] SGHC 222

The court dismissed the applicants' appeals against the Assistant Registrar's decision to disallow amendments to originating summonses and to strike out the proceedings, holding that the applications constituted an abuse of process under the Henderson doctrine as the applicants h

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Re Singapore Medical Council [2023] SGHC 213

The court will only grant extensions of time for the Complaints Committee to complete its inquiry if adequate reasons are provided, keeping in mind the legislative intent to expedite the complaints process.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 209

In Crescendas Bionics v Jurong Primewide [2023] SGHC 209, the High Court awarded costs to the successful party but moderated the amount due to extreme litigation positions. The ruling highlights judicial discretion in calibrating cost awards based on reasonableness and success on specific issues.

Sushant Shukla· ·6 min read
Singapore

Lin Yueh Hung and another v Andreas Vogel & Partner, Rechtsanwaelte, AV & P Legal LLP and others [2023] SGHC 208

The court clarified the application of O 4 r 3(3) of the Rules of Court 2021 regarding the self-representation of a company by an officer, noting that the focus is on the officer's characterisation and abilities rather than the detailed procedural requirements of the former ROC 2

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Interactive Digital Finance Ltd and another v Credit Suisse AG and another [2023] SGHC 198

Case Details * Citation: [2023] SGHC 198 * Case Number: Originating Claim No 225 of 2023 (Registrar’s Appeal No 95 of 2023) * Decision Date: 24 July 2023 * Court: General Division of the High

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Razer (Asia-Pacific) Pte Ltd v Capgemini Singapore Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 195

In Razer (Asia-Pacific) Pte Ltd v Capgemini Singapore Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Costs.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Tey Leng Yen v Mai Xun Yao [2023] SGHC 194

The court held that permission to appeal against a costs order will only be granted if the applicant demonstrates a prima facie case of error, a question of general principle decided for the first time, or a question of importance, and that the applicant failed to meet this thres

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Hon G v Tan Pei Li [2023] SGHC 193

Permission to appeal against a District Judge's decision is refused where the applicant fails to demonstrate a prima facie case of error or a question of general principle decided for the first time.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Ho Chee Kian v Ho Kwek Sin [2023] SGHC 192

In Ho Chee Kian v Ho Kwek Sin, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Summary judgment, Contract — Discharge.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

Foo Kok Boon v Ngow Kheong Shen and others and another matter [2023] SGHC 189

The court held that the doctrine of prospective overruling applies to the decision in Salmizan, meaning it does not apply to interlocutory judgments entered before 30 March 2023.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Cova Group Holdings Ltd v Advanced Submarine Networks Pte Ltd and another [2023] SGHC 178

The court held that security for costs may be ordered against a foreign claimant even if there is an overlap between the defence and counterclaim, provided that the counterclaim does not have an independent vitality of its own and the order does not confer an unjust advantage.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Horizon Capital Fund v Ollech David [2023] SGHC 164

The court dismissed the defendant's application to admit new evidence and his appeals against the dismissal of a stay application and the grant of summary judgment, finding that the defendant failed to raise a bona fide defence.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Housing & Development Board v Cenobia Majella Chettiar [2023] SGHC 161

The District Court has broad powers under the Rules of Court 2021 to consider relevant documents on appeal, even if they were not filed before the Registrar, provided it furthers the interests of substantive justice.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Parastate Labs Inc v Wang Li and others [2023] SGHC 153

The court held that a Mareva injunction quantum should be set based on the applicant's ability to meet its undertaking as to damages, and that material non-disclosure (including failure to provide prescribed undertakings) is a relevant factor in determining whether to grant or li

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Proofpoint, Inc v Maiwand Youssoftay [2023] SGHC 150

The court dismissed an application for evidence to be obtained in Singapore under the Evidence (Civil Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1979 because the document relied upon (a 'Commission to Take Deposition Outside California') did not unambiguously evidence a request from

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Neverland Investment Holdings Pte Ltd v P.T Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHC 15

The court held that it is appropriate to impose a condition of security for leave to defend when the defendant's case is unsubstantiated and the overall impression calls for a demonstration of commitment. The court reduced the security amount to reflect the value of the deposit m

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Auto Lease (Pte) Ltd v San Hup Bee Motor LLP and others [2023] SGHC 141

A third party who has been directed to be bound by the result of a trial has locus standi to appeal a judgment given in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Absolute Kinetics Consultancy Pte Ltd v Seah Yong Wah (Singapore Telecommunications Ltd, non-party) [2019] SGHCR 2

The court held that where an application for non-party discovery cannot be founded on O 24 r 6(2) of the Rules of Court (e.g., because the documents do not yet exist), the court may exercise its inherent powers to order the creation and disclosure of such documents if it is neces

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Chan Kin Foo v City Developments Ltd [2013] SGHC 61

The court held that a collective sale process under the Land Titles (Strata) Act does not violate Article 12 of the Constitution as it provides equal opportunity to all subsidiary proprietors, and that the UDHR does not form part of local law.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

SMC Marine Services (Pte) Ltd v Thangavelu Boopathiraja and Others [2008] SGHC 29

The court granted an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from using confidential information and infringing copyright, finding that the plaintiff had raised serious questions to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff given the defendants' li

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and Others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and Others, Third Parties) [2008] SGHC 28

The court held that pleadings should be struck out only if they are irrelevant or do not disclose a reasonable defence, but courts generally allow latitude in pleadings for defendants.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Heow Mee Han and Others v Cheong Hock Kiam [2008] SGHC 27

The court held that the defendant failed to satisfy the conditions for admitting fresh evidence on appeal and that the evidence before the registrar was insufficient to establish the alleged debt.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Bing Integrated Construction Pte Ltd v Eco Special Waste Management Pte Ltd (Chua Tiong Guan and Another, Third Parties) and Another Suit [2008] SGHC 25

Discovery is not necessary at the liability stage if the documents sought relate to the assessment of damages, which is a secondary issue that does not form the key plank of the case.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Sie Choon Poh (trading as Image Galaxy) v Amara Hotel Properties Pte Ltd [2008] SGHC 24

A judge hearing an appeal from an Assistant Registrar exercises a confirmatory jurisdiction and should be slow to disturb the AR's findings unless there are grounds to differ, especially where the decision involved witness examination.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read