LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

Muhamad Zulhilmi bin Mohamad Sapari v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 209

In Muhamad Zulhilmi bin Mohamad Sapari v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Statutory offences, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

VMax Marine Pte Ltd v Singapore Salvage Engineers Pte Ltd and another appeal [2024] SGHC 208

A court is not functus officio until the order is perfected (passed and sealed). While the court has inherent jurisdiction to hear a consequential matter after the hearing, it must exercise its discretion judicially and not capriciously, with the overriding objective of dealing w

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Mak-Levrion Kah Kay Natasha (alias Mai Jiaqi Natasha) v R Shiamala [2024] SGHC 207

In Mak-Levrion Kah Kay Natasha v R Shiamala [2024] SGHC 207, the High Court ruled in favor of the Claimant, awarding $466,700. The Court rejected defenses of limitation and laches, affirming that written acknowledgments effectively revive debts and reset the statutory limitation period.

Sushant Shukla· ·7 min read
Singapore

BGC Partners (Singapore) Ltd and another v Sumit Grover [2024] SGHC 206

The court held that the Employment Agreement was binding on the defendant, the defence of non est factum failed, and the employer was entitled to terminate the employment for failure to meet the performance ratio.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Lim Jinn Tonn Zanelle v Royal Amulet Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 205

The court held that the appointment of solicitors by a director without the requisite authority under the company's articles of association is invalid, and such documents filed by the unauthorised solicitors may be struck out.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Re CK Tan Law Corp [2024] SGHC 204

The court dismissed an application to extend time for registering a charge because the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the circumstances surrounding the inadvertence and failed to include a proviso to protect third-party interests acquired during the lengthy de

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

British and Malayan Trustees Ltd v Ameen Ali Salim Talib and others [2024] SGHC 203

The court affirmed that trustees have an equitable right of recoupment to adjust trust accounts where over-payments have been made to beneficiaries due to a mistake of construction or fact, and that such recoupment can be effected by adjusting future distributions.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Mattirolo, Vasco and another v Doshi Sayyam Hiteshkumar [2024] SGHC 202

A claimant cannot succeed in an application for summary judgment if there is a triable issue, and the court must be satisfied that the claimant has a clear and unequivocal cause of action supported by incontrovertible evidence.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Tan Sen Yang [2024] SGHC 201

In Public Prosecutor v Tan Sen Yang, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Offences ; Criminal Law — Special exceptions.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Baizanis, Georgios v Snap Innovations Pte Ltd and another [2024] SGHC 200

The judgment in Baizanis, Georgios v Snap Innovations Pte Ltd and another [2024] SGHC 200 represents a significant exploration of the evidentiary and agency-related complexities inherent in modern cryptocurrency investment disputes. The Plaintiff, Georgios Baizanis, sought to rec

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Progress ABMS Pte Ltd v Progress Welded Mesh Sdn Bhd [2024] SGHC 20

The court affirmed summary judgment for the claimant, finding that the defendant failed to establish a real or bona fide defence, and that the defendant's counterclaims were either implausible or speculative and did not warrant a stay of execution.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Ng Nicholas v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 2

The sentencing framework in Melvin Tan for fraudulent evasion of GST under s 128D of the Customs Act is extended to apply to offences involving the fraudulent evasion of excise duty under the same section, provided no harmful goods are involved.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Madina Beevi Abdul Jameel v M Akbar bin Mohamed Ibrahim (Official Assignee, non-party) [2024] SGHC 199

The court's residual discretion under s 316(3)(e) of the IRDA to dismiss a bankruptcy application is wide but must be exercised in a principled manner. A debtor's conscious decision to challenge a bankruptcy application, leading to unsuitability for the Debt Repayment Scheme, doe

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Singapore

Sullivan, Sir Cornelius Sean v Hill Capital Pte Ltd and another [2024] SGHC 198

A director of a corporate trustee does not owe fiduciary duties to the trust beneficiaries solely by virtue of their directorship, and the corporate veil cannot be pierced to impose such duties unless the company is a mere alter ego of the director.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

BTHMB Holdings Pte Ltd v Kim Byung Gun [2024] SGHC 197

In BTHMB Holdings Pte Ltd v Kim Byung Gun, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Equity — Remedies ; Civil Procedure — Costs.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

Re Medora Xerxes Jamshid (in his capacity as the private trustee in bankruptcy of Tan Han Meng) (Planar One & Associates Pte Ltd (in liquidation), non-party) [2024] SGHC 196

A claim for breach of fiduciary duty is a provable debt in bankruptcy under s 87(3) of the Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed) as an unliquidated claim arising by reason of a breach of trust.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd (Group Lease Public Co Ltd and another, non-parties) [2024] SGHC 195

A company is unable to pay its debts for the purposes of s 125(2)(c) of the IRDA if it is cash flow insolvent, and the court may exercise its residual discretion to wind up the company despite the prima facie entitlement of a creditor to a winding up order.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

DIB v DIC [2024] SGHC 194

The court dismissed the application to set aside an arbitral award, finding that the alleged breaches of natural justice did not result in prejudice that would warrant setting aside the award.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Alka v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 193

In Alka v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Appeal.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Gunvor SA v Atlantis Commodities Trading Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 192

In Gunvor SA v Atlantis Commodities Trading Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Insolvency Law — Winding up.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Kho Choon Keng v Lian Keng Enterprises Pte Ltd (Kho Patrick and another, non-parties) [2024] SGHC 191

In Kho Choon Keng v Lian Keng Enterprises Pte Ltd (Kho Patrick and another, non-parties), the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Insolvency Law — Winding up, Companies — Winding up.

Sushant Shukla· ·3 min read
Singapore

Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port and Terminal Pte Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 190

A party in breach of a Mareva injunction may be ordered to restore the value of dissipated assets to the asset pool, and a striking out order (with an unless order) is appropriate where the party's conduct demonstrates a total and contumelious disregard for court orders.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Law Society of Singapore v Seah Choon Huat Johnny and another matter [2024] SGHC 19

The court held that a solicitor's concealment of a mistake and subsequent misrepresentation to the court and client, coupled with a failure to act with diligence, warrants a substantial period of suspension, even if restitution is made.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Wang Bin v Zhong Sihui [2024] SGHC 189

The court held that actual notice of arbitration proceedings, even if not strictly in accordance with institutional rules, is sufficient to preclude a complaint of lack of proper notice under s 31(2)(c) of the International Arbitration Act.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read