LITT
Try LITT free
The Portal WW.Legal.com. Pte Ltd v Horizon.iTech Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 11
In The Portal WW.Legal.com. Pte Ltd v Horizon.iTech Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 11, the court dismissed claims for liquidated damages, ruling that minor technical breaches do not justify withholding payment for substantially performed IT services after formal user acceptance sign-off.
Public Prosecutor v Kee Hwee Lun [2002] SGHC 89
In Public Prosecutor v Kee Hwee Lun, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of No catchword.
Lumbini Pte Ltd v Toh Peng Noi and Others (Tan Soo Kiat and Others, Third Parties) [2002] SGHC 85
The High Court dismissed Lumbini Pte Ltd's claims in their entirety, ruling that the plaintiff failed to establish a valid cause of action regarding business asset transfers. The court found the dispute stemmed from a disagreement over payment rather than a breach of duty or wrongful transfer.
Fortune Realty Pte Ltd v Lim Sai Kang and Another [2002] SGHC 59
In Fortune Realty Pte Ltd v Lim Sai Kang [2002] SGHC 59, the High Court ruled against the developer, holding that a car park lot could not be included in the promised floor area. The court applied the contra proferentem rule to resolve contractual ambiguity in favour of the purchasers.
Public Prosecutor v Sivaraman Reddy Sivakumar [2002] SGHC 48
In Public Prosecutor v Sivaraman Reddy Sivakumar [2002], the Court rejected the accused's provocation and suicide claims, finding him the primary aggressor. Despite mitigating factors, he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane for culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Eka Tjipta Widjaja v Fifi [2002] SGHC 38
In Eka Tjipta Widjaja v Fifi [2002] SGHC 38, the High Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, rejecting the Defendant's 'sole purpose' defense. The court held that oral evidence cannot contradict clear written loan agreements absent proof of misrepresentation or duress.
C & A Aviation (Pte) Ltd and Others v Fokker Services Asia Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 37
In C & A Aviation v Fokker Services Asia, the High Court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish an easement for car parking, clarifying that parking rights are typically mere licences. The court emphasized the strict evidentiary requirements for proving property interests in Singapore.
Fila Sport S p A v Ramesh Tulsidas Wadhwani trading as P T International Corporation and Another [2002] SGHC 35
In Fila Sport S p A v Ramesh Tulsidas Wadhwani [2002] SGHC 35, the Singapore High Court granted pre-action discovery and interrogatories, ruling that defendants could not invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid disclosing details regarding the supply of counterfeit goods.
Li Hwee Building Construction Pte Ltd v Advanced Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd and Another [2002] SGHC 287
In Li Hwee Building Construction v Advanced Construction [2002] SGHC 287, the court ruled the contract was mutually abrogated by conduct. While the claim for loss of profits was dismissed, the court ordered an assessment of quantum for works performed and awarded partial costs to the plaintiffs.
Tan Chin Seng and Others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 278
In Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club [2002], the High Court dismissed claims that admitting 19,000 members breached the contract to provide a 'premier club'. The court ruled that high membership levels did not constitute a fundamental breach, placing the burden of proof on plaintiffs to show otherwi
Veria Engineering & Development Pte Ltd v Lam Hong Leong Aluminium Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 277
In Veria Engineering & Development Pte Ltd v Lam Hong Leong Aluminium Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of No catchword.
Public Prosecutor v Ramli bin Ismail [2002] SGHC 262
In Public Prosecutor v Ramli bin Ismail, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of No catchword.
Contour Optik Inc and Others v Pearl's Optical Co Pte Ltd and Another [2002] SGHC 238
In Contour Optik Inc v Pearl's Optical Co [2002] SGHC 238, the High Court dismissed patent infringement claims, finding them unproven and groundless. The court ordered damages for threats and mandated patent revocation unless amended, highlighting strict evidentiary and registration requirements.
Sinnadurai Thirumoorthy v Goh Seck Kang [2002] SGHC 230
In Sinnadurai Thirumoorthy v Goh Seck Kang [2002] SGHC 230, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding his evidence inconsistent and unsubstantiated. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, confirming that share transfers successfully discharged the alleged debts.
Chidambaram s/o Alagappa v Alagappa Subramanian [2002] SGHC 208
In Chidambaram s/o Alagappa v Alagappa Subramanian [2002] SGHC 208, the court dismissed allegations of misconduct, ruling that the defendant fulfilled his fiduciary duty to account for the '4 Brothers' Accounts' through substantiated financial records, ordering payment of over S$2.6 million.
Public Prosecutor v Seethong Phichet [2002] SGHC 204
In Public Prosecutor v Seethong Phichet, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of No catchword.
Just Gems Limited v Shirley Ooi Ching Ling and Another [2002] SGHC 19
In Just Gems Limited v Shirley Ooi Ching Ling [2002] SGHC 19, the High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the repayment of US$550,000 due to a total failure of consideration in a failed share investment, and declared the plaintiff was never a shareholder of Pacific Rim Limited.
Public Prosecutor v Salehudden bin Ibrahim [2002] SGHC 180
In Public Prosecutor v Salehudden bin Ibrahim, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of No catchword.
Public Prosecutor v Siddharth Mujumdar [2002] SGHC 172
In Public Prosecutor v Siddharth Mujumdar, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of No catchword.
Ranjeet Kaur v Chiang Sung Chek and Another [2002] SGHC 168
In Ranjeet Kaur v Chiang Sung Chek and Another, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of No catchword.
Datawork Pte Ltd v Cyberinc Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 132
In Datawork Pte Ltd v Cyberinc Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of No catchword.
Public Prosecutor v Syed Hamid bin A Kadir Alhamid [2002] SGHC 127
In Public Prosecutor v Syed Hamid bin A Kadir Alhamid, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of No catchword.
Flairis Technology Corporation Limited & Anor v Gan Huan Kee & Ors [2002] SGHC 116
In Flairis Technology Corporation Limited v Gan Huan Kee [2002] SGHC 116, the High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for breach of confidence and fiduciary duty, finding insufficient evidence. The court discharged the interim injunction and ordered an inquiry into damages for the defendants.
Goh Ah Teck v Yeo Bee Luan [2001] SGHC 92
In Goh Ah Teck v Yeo Bee Luan, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of No catchword.