LITT
Try LITT free
DKT v DKU [2024] SGHC 300
The court held that an arbitral tribunal's finding that a party failed to adduce evidence to substantiate its defence does not constitute a breach of natural justice, and that the 'no evidence rule' is not part of Singapore law.
Lin Haifeng v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 30
In Lin Haifeng v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal review.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Wei Fong Nicman [2024] SGHC 3
In Public Prosecutor v Lim Wei Fong Nicman, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Statutory offences.
Sang Cheol Woo v Spackman, Charles Choi and others [2024] SGHC 299
The Riddick principle does not apply to documents disclosed to resist interlocutory applications where there is no court order compelling disclosure. The court retains jurisdiction to hear amendment applications post-judgment if something remains to be done in the proceedings.
Zipmex Pte Ltd v Zipmex Asia Pte Ltd and another and another matter [2024] SGHC 298
The court held that a provisional liquidator has no power to adjudicate proofs of debt for voting purposes prior to a creditors' meeting without court leave, and that s 176(1) of the IRDA only validates acts performed by a liquidator prior to the discovery of defects in their app
Ching Kelvin v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 297
In Ching Kelvin v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing, Criminal Law — Statutory offences.
TrueCoin LLC v Techteryx, Ltd [2024] SGHC 296
An anti-suit injunction may be granted to restrain foreign court proceedings where there is a prima facie breach of an arbitration agreement, unless there are strong reasons not to do so.
Re Cai Jinhong [2024] SGHC 295
The court may exercise its power under s 56(1) of the Trustees Act 1967 to sanction the sale of trust property if it is expedient, even if the applicant incorrectly relied on s 13(1).
Chan Chow Chuen v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 294
In Chan Chow Chuen v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing, Road Traffic — Offences.
Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Pickering, Alan John and others [2024] SGHC 293
Directors of a company in liquidation are liable for breaches of fiduciary duties where they caused the company to make unjustified payments or incur expenses for their own benefit while the company was insolvent or of doubtful solvency.
Ang Kian Tiong v DBS Bank Ltd [2024] SGHC 292
In Ang Kian Tiong v DBS Bank Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Credit and Security — Bonds.
Dao Thi Boi v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 290
In Dao Thi Boi v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Offences ; Criminal Law — Elements of crime, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.
Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29
The Singapore High Court dismissed Shopee's application for an interim injunction against a former employee joining ByteDance, ruling that the employer failed to provide specific evidence of irreparable harm or a serious question to be tried regarding the non-competition clause.
Kapital Fund SPC v Lee Tze Wee Andrew and another [2024] SGHC 289
A claim for conspiracy or inducement of breach of contract against a director of a company that breached a contract is barred by the Said v Butt principle unless the director breached personal fiduciary duties to the company. Furthermore, a non-party to a contract cannot be liabl
Lai Chung Wing v Nusantara Energy International Pte Ltd (Official Receiver, non-party) [2024] SGHC 288
The court held that s 125(1)(c) of the IRDA provides a practical avenue for corporate entities that have failed and are not carrying on business to be dissolved, and is not limited to cases where contributories seek to recover capital.
GIL v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 287
The court held that s 116A of the Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) is intended to facilitate the admission of electronic records into evidence and does not relieve parties of the burden of proving the reliability of such evidence once admitted.
Farm to Fork Sdn Bhd v Adamas Sg Pte Ltd and another [2024] SGHC 286
The High Court dismissed Farm to Fork Sdn Bhd's claims for injunctive relief and equitable damages, ruling they were unfounded. The court partially allowed the defendants' counterclaims, ordering the plaintiff to pay $66,660, reinforcing the high threshold for awarding equitable damages.
ISU Specialty Chemical Co Ltd v C&D (Singapore) Business Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 285
In ISU Specialty Chemical Co Ltd v C&D (Singapore) Business Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Formation.
Public Prosecutor v Iswan bin Ali [2024] SGHC 284
An accused person is not a courier under s 33B(2) MDA if their involvement extends beyond transporting, sending, or delivering drugs, such as by sourcing the drugs or exercising decision-making power over the price.
Singapore Medical Council v Ling Chia Tien [2024] SGHC 283
The court held that a 19-month suspension imposed by the disciplinary tribunal was not manifestly inadequate, and that the SMC's primary case for an 81-month suspension (reduced to 36 months) was overstated.
The “Maersk Katalin” [2024] SGHC 282
A carrier is liable for misdelivery if it discharges cargo without presentation of original bills of lading, and the carrier's breach is the effective cause of the loss, even if the bank did not initially look to the bills as security.
Changi Airport Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Comptroller of Income Tax [2024] SGHC 281
The runways, taxiways, and aprons (RTA) of an airport are classified as 'structures' rather than 'plant' for the purposes of capital allowances under s 19A of the Income Tax Act, as they constitute the premise on which the trade occurs rather than an apparatus used for the trade.
Founder Group (Hong Kong) Ltd (in liquidation) v Singapore Commodities Group Co, Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 280
The court exercised its procedural discretion under O 3 r 2(2) of the Rules of Court 2021 to order the payment out of court of funds held as security for a winding-up application, where the underlying arbitration had concluded without a positive finding on the existence of the de
Attorney-General v Shanmugam Manohar and another [2024] SGHC 28
The court held that a Disciplinary Tribunal is not under a duty to provide views or advice on hypothetical issues, and that it is the court, not the Disciplinary Tribunal, that has the power to grant substituted service orders for attendance orders.