LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

C & K Credit Pte Ltd v Lee Chin Kwee Kalvin [2002] SGHC 245

The service of a statutory demand does not commence bankruptcy proceedings, and a notice of assignment can be served simultaneously with it. However, a statutory demand must properly account for deductions from proceeds of sale to be valid.

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Woon Salacion Dalayon v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 244

The appellate court will not disturb findings of fact of a lower court unless they are clearly reached against the weight of evidence. Threats to cause death are serious and generally warrant custodial sentences, but the specific circumstances of the threat, including the lack of

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Tong Djoe @ Tong Lian Joo v Hua Ann Brothers Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 243

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for a lifetime right to occupy a property owned by a company in liquidation, finding no binding arrangement existed and the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Nurashikin Binte Ahmad Borhan [2002] SGHC 242

In Public Prosecutor v Nurashikin Binte Ahmad Borhan [2002] SGHC 242, the High Court overturned an acquittal, convicting the respondent of theft under s 380 of the Penal Code and imposing a two-week prison sentence after rejecting a probation plea for a repeat offender.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Yeo Chiang Chew v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 241

An appellate court will not disturb the findings of fact of the court below unless they are clearly reached against the weight of the evidence, especially where the trial judge has had the opportunity to observe the demeanour of the witnesses.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Vignes s/o Mourthi & Another [2002] SGHC 240

The court held that the accused persons were guilty of drug trafficking based on the evidence of possession and the failure to rebut statutory presumptions.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Syed Abdul Mutalip bin Syed Sidek and Another [2002] SGHC 24

The court held that the accused persons were in joint possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, as evidenced by their voluntary statements and forensic evidence, and that their acts were in furtherance of a common intention.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Healthy Living Marketing Pte Ltd v Jeanrich Marketing Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 239

The court held that the Plaintiffs terminated the agency agreement bona fide under clause 12 due to the Defendants' breach of trust and bad faith, and that the Defendants breached the non-competition clause.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

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.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Ken Glass Design Associate Pte Ltd v Wind-Power Construction Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 237

In Ken Glass Design Associate v Wind-Power Construction [2002], the court dismissed a claim for breach of contract, ruling the agreement void as it was a deceptive scheme to bypass JTC approval. The court refused to enforce the contract, citing the clean hands doctrine and party illegality.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Abdul Razak Valibhoy v Keppel Investment Management Ltd [2002] SGHC 236

The court held that the Investment Agreement constituted the entire agreement between the parties, superseding pre-contract documents like the Investment Plan, and that the Plaintiff failed to establish any collateral contract or breach of fiduciary duty.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Loo Kun Long [2002] SGHC 235

Section 30(2)(a) of the Films Act (Cap 107, 1998 Rev Ed) is to be interpreted as imposing a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000 per film, notwithstanding the ambiguous drafting, to give effect to Parliament's clear intention.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

HillField International Ltd and Others v Chew Lai Yoke Bettina and another action [2002] SGHC 234

The court determined ownership of disputed personal items based on the terms of a Deed of Separation and the credibility of the parties, finding that the husband was entitled to certain items not excluded by the Deed.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Sin Sai Peng and Another v Soh Kim Lian Florence [2002] SGHC 233

In disputes involving unforeseen circumstances in property ownership between parties in a relationship, the court will impute a common intention of reasonable persons to resolve the dispute, which may include granting vacant possession conditional upon payment of the outstanding

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Chia Sze Chang v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 232

An appellate court will be slow to overturn findings of fact by the trial judge especially when an assessment of the credibility and veracity of the witness has been made.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Tan Ah Suan v Ng Aik Kern and Others [2002] SGHC 231

For adverse possession, there must be both factual possession and animus possidendi. A possessor need not personally occupy the land; the exercise of acts of ownership, such as collecting rent, is sufficient to establish adverse possession.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

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.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Mohammed Zairi Bin Mohamad Mohtar and Another v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 23

An appellate court will defer to the trial judge’s findings of fact unless they are clearly wrong or against the weight of evidence, and a witness's credit being impeached does not mean all their evidence must be disregarded.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Faith Maritime Co Ltd v Feoso (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another action [2002] SGHC 229

A party not claiming any right under a bill of lading cannot rely on s 2(1) of the Bills of Lading Act to mount a claim for breach of contract. A lien for demurrage and costs incorporated into a bill of lading is enforceable against the cargo owner even if the cargo owner is not

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Takenaka Corp [2002] SGHC 228

The court held that where a court orders 'costs thrown away', the taxing master is entitled to consider time spent on getting up, even if getting-up costs were not specifically ordered.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and Others (No 2) (Lim Lie Hoa, Third Party) [2002] SGHC 227

The court held that interim payments cannot be granted before an inquiry determines the assets of an estate, as there is no basis to speculate on the estate's value. Additionally, third-party notices cannot be used to expand the scope of an inquiry into independent actions.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Wanari bin Kamri [2002] SGHC 226

The court found the victim's testimony reliable and rejected the accused's claims of consent and lack of penetration, leading to conviction.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Yeoh Aik Wei [2002] SGHC 225

The prosecution must prove that the accused knew or intended to bring the controlled drug into Singapore. The accused failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Mumthaj Beevi w/o Mohd Arif t/a Bhadhar Point v M/s Niru & Co (Mohamed Arif S/O Sahul Hameed, Third Party) [2002] SGHC 224

A party cannot avoid issue estoppel or res judicata by alleging that an order was procured by fraud if they were aware of the fraud but did not raise it in the earlier action, or if they did, did not appeal against it.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read