LITT
Try LITT free
Turms Advisors APAC Pte Ltd v Steppe Gold Ltd [2024] SGHC 174
The court held that the claimant was not entitled to a success fee as the parties had orally agreed to exclude the specific facility from the mandate, and the claimant was estopped from denying this exclusion. However, the claimant was entitled to a retainer fee under clause 6(e)
EBS Flow Control Ltd v Greene, Tweed & Co Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 147
The court held that the 2020 Distributorship Agreement was for a fixed one-year term without automatic renewal, and that there was no implied term requiring the defendant to buy back leftover inventory upon expiry.
Banque de Commerce et de Placements SA, DIFC Branch & Anor v China Aviation Oil (Singapore) Corporation Ltd [2024] SGHC 145
The court held that the contract between the defendant and the third party was not a sham or fraudulent transaction, and that the plaintiff failed to establish liability in deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, or unlawful means conspiracy.
Lim Seong Ong and another v Panshore Engineering Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 135
A plaintiff claiming damages for breach of contract must prove that the breach caused the loss and that the loss is not too remote. The burden of proof remains on the plaintiff even if the breach of contract is alleged to be a breach of fiduciary duty.
Fitzgerald, Ruth v Dulwich College (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 114
The Singapore High Court dismissed a wrongful termination claim in Fitzgerald v Dulwich College, ruling that an employee's stated inability to perform core duties constituted an anticipatory breach. The court held that failure to clarify availability justified summary dismissal under the substantial
Wong Ben and others v The WatchFund Ltd and another [2024] SGHC 110
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation due to lack of evidence of falsity and damage, but found the first defendant liable for breach of contract for failing to perform re-purchase obligations.
Chen Qiming v Huttons Asia Pte Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 103
The court dismissed claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of statutory duty, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged representations were made or that they caused the pleaded losses, and that the Estate Agents Act doe
Li Jialin and another v Wingcrown Investment Pte Ltd [2024] SGCA 48
The Court of Appeal in Li Jialin v Wingcrown Investment [2024] SGCA 48 ruled that while the respondent could retain the $357,000 option fee, it had no right to forfeit the remaining $23,000 deposit. The appellants were awarded $60,000 in costs for succeeding on the principal legal argument.
Tan Yew Huat v Sin Joo Huat Hardware Pte Ltd and another matter [2024] SGCA 27
The court held that a valid settlement agreement was concluded between the parties and that the doctrine of common mistake was not applicable as the parties were aware of the trust arrangement. Furthermore, the availability of a voluntary winding up is a factor that militates aga
Amberwork Source Pte Ltd v QA Systems Pte Ltd and another [2023] SGHC 92
The Singapore High Court dismissed Amberwork Source Pte Ltd's breach of contract claim against QA Systems, ruling the plaintiff failed to prove non-delivery. The court emphasized that the burden of proof rests on the claimant, especially when contemporaneous evidence suggests delivery occurred.
Tan Tien Sek v Tan Tien Sai [2023] SGHC 81
In Tan Tien Sek v Tan Tien Sai [2023] SGHC 81, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, ruling that he failed to prove the transfer documents were a sham or that an enforceable oral undertaking existed regarding the property's monetary value.
3N Investments Group Ltd and another v Lim Boon Chye Victor and others [2023] SGHC 76
The court held that the defendants were under an absolute obligation to transfer shares by the stipulated deadline, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the diminution in share value caused by the delay, as such loss was not too remote and the plaintiffs had not f
Maxx Engineering Works Pte Ltd v PQ Builders Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 71
A contractual obligation to 'refer' a dispute to mediation is a mandatory obligation to mediate, distinct from an obligation to merely 'consider' mediation.
Kwek Hong Lim v Kwek Sum Chuan [2023] SGHC 67
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for shares and property based on an alleged oral agreement, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the agreement and that the parties lacked the intention to create legal relations.
Rio Christofle v Tan Chun Chuen Malcolm [2023] SGHC 66
The court held that the plaintiff was not the proper party to the contract as the contract was between the plaintiff's company (GCX) and the defendant's company (Qrypt). Furthermore, the court found that the contract was not illegal under the Payment Services Act 2019.
Thong Soon Seng v Magnus Energy Group Ltd [2023] SGHC 5
The plaintiff bears the legal and evidential burden of proving the existence of a loan agreement when the defendant denies the debt, and a mere admission of receipt of funds does not shift this burden.
Kelly, Patrick Michael v Clicks2customers Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHC 4
The court held that the 8 March MOU was the binding agreement governing the parties' relationship, despite its title and some editorial errors, as the parties' conduct demonstrated an intention to be bound. The court also held that an implied term of reasonable notice for termina
Dialectic PR LLC and another v Brilliante Resources International and another [2023] SGHC 39
In Dialectic PR LLC v Brilliante Resources International [2023] SGHC 39, the High Court held the 1st Defendant liable for breach of contract, awarding US$3.25M in damages. The claim against the 2nd Defendant was dismissed, clarifying the high threshold for director liability in inducing breach.
Bhoomatidevi d/o Kishinchand Chugani Mrs Kavita Gope Mirwani v Nantakumar s/o v Ramachandra and another [2023] SGHC 37
A party who signs a contract without qualification as to capacity is the proper party to the contract, even if the contract contains inconsistencies regarding the identity of the parties.
Shanghai Afute Food and Beverage Management Co Ltd v Tan Swee Meng and others [2023] SGHC 34
The court found that the defendants breached the Master Franchise Agreement, committed a breach of confidence by disclosing trade secrets (recipes), and engaged in unlawful means conspiracy.
Chng Heow Ho (alias Victor Chng) v Chng Choon Ming Roger [2023] SGHC 325
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the purported oral agreement or any trust, and that the subsequent restructuring agreement effectively extinguished any claims to the family funds.
Intertek Testing Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Haidir bin Mohamad Khir [2023] SGHC 320
In Intertek Testing Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Haidir bin Mohamad Khir, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Discovery, Contract — Breach.
Cradle Wealth Solutions Pte Ltd v MTN Consultants & Building Management Pte Ltd and another [2023] SGHC 307
The court held that the Settlement Agreement was not a sham and that the parol evidence rule, reinforced by an entire agreement clause, precluded the defendants from relying on an alleged oral condition precedent.
Chng Kheng Chye (in a representative capacity on behalf of Kaefer Prostar Pte Ltd) v Kaefer Integrated Services Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 30
The court held that the Management Agreements were not binding contracts but mere accounting records, and that the Plaintiff had established the existence of a loan arrangement whereby the Defendant retained the disputed sum as a loan to be repaid to the Company.