LITT
Try LITT free
Cendekia Candranegara Tjiang v Yin Kum Choy and Others [2002] SGHC 136
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that expressly requires further agreements to be entered into on terms to be agreed upon at a later date is not a binding contract if the essential terms are not settled and the document is merely a preliminary framework.
Chiltern Park Development Pte Ltd v Ong Pang Wee and Others [2002] SGHC 135
The High Court does not have jurisdiction to order the transfer of proceedings from a Magistrate's Court to the High Court, as the statutory scheme under the Subordinate Courts Act only provides for transfers from the District Court.
Baridhi Shipping Lines Ltd and Another v Sea Consortium Pte Ltd and Another [2002] SGHC 134
The court held that where a foreign court has ruled it has no jurisdiction to hear a claim, the burden remains on the defendant to prove that the foreign forum is clearly and distinctly more appropriate than the Singapore forum.
Irawan Darsono and Another v Ong Soon Kiat [2002] SGHC 133
Contracts that are illegal as formed or intended to be performed in a legally prohibited manner are unenforceable.
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.
China Airlines Limited v Philips Hong Kong Limited [2002] SGHC 131
Under Article 22(2)(b) of the amended Warsaw Convention, the limit of liability for cargo loss is to be computed based on the total weight of the package as declared in the air waybill, regardless of whether it contains smaller sub-packages.
Soh Gim Chuan (private trustee of the estate of Goh Poh Choo in bankruptcy) v Koh Hai Keong and Another [2002] SGHC 130
The court held that solicitors holding client money in their client account are 'associates' of the client under s 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Act. However, the presumption of unfair preference under s 99(5) was rebutted as the legal fees were genuine and not excessive, and the paym
Adani Wilmar Ltd v Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA ("Rabobank Nederland") [2002] SGHC 128
The Singapore High Court ruled in favor of Adani Wilmar Ltd, rejecting Rabobank's defenses of frustration and mistake. The court held that the bank breached the implied term of the right to sell goods, ordering damages to be assessed after finding the bank failed to mitigate contractual impediments.
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.
Ong Leong Chuan v Ong Heng Chuan and Others [2002] SGHC 126
The court held that a cheque payment that is dishonoured does not constitute valid payment under a compromise agreement, and that late cash payment does not satisfy the time requirements of the agreement.
Marina Tanker Sdn Bhd v Chan Fook Choon and Another [2002] SGHC 125
The court determined the quantum of damages for negligent engine repair, disallowing expenses not directly attributable to the negligence and approving repair costs supported by surveyor evidence.
Chan Hong Seng Engrg & Const Pte Ltd v Vatten International Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 124
The High Court ruled that a subcontractor's site abandonment justified contract termination. The court ordered a mutual assessment of damages, allowing the subcontractor payment for work completed while awarding the main contractor damages for the costs of hiring a replacement to ensure warranty cov
Re Dayang Construction and Engineering Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 123
A statutory demand under s 254(2)(a) of the Companies Act does not require a specific reference to the three-week period for payment, nor does it require a warning that failure to comply will lead to winding-up proceedings.
Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan [2002] SGHC 122
The court dismissed the application, ruling that the parties were estopped from re-litigating the complexity of the case for Queen's Counsel admission. A previous final decision had already determined that the suits did not warrant such admission.
Loh Kok Siew v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 121
The court will only grant a further postponement of the commencement of a sentence of imprisonment if the applicant can show dire and urgent circumstances, and the burden of proof lies on the applicant.
Koh Thian Huat v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 120
The High Court's revisionary powers are not a substitute for an appeal and will only be exercised to prevent serious injustice or correct errors of law or procedure.
Balasubramanian Palaniappa Vaiyapuri v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 12
The court held that the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court should be invoked only if there was serious injustice, and that the plea of guilt was valid and unequivocal despite the petitioner's claim of intoxication.
Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore v Singapore Telecommunications Ltd (No 2) [2002] SGHC 119
The High Court dismissed the IDA's $1.5 billion claim against SingTel, ruling that the payment was part of a valid, final settlement. The court held that because SingTel provided substantial consideration by waiving potential claims, the deal must remain inviolate, rejecting restitutionary claims.
Tan Cheng Kwee v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 118
Section 79(1) of the Road Traffic Act creates a strict liability offence regarding the driving of heavy motor vehicles exceeding four metres in height without a permit, as it pertains to public safety.
Tan Hock Chuan v Tan Tiong Hwa [2002] SGHC 117
The High Court's power of criminal revision under s 266 of the Criminal Procedure Code is restricted to criminal proceedings; applications for personal protection orders under the Women's Charter are civil in nature and thus not subject to criminal revision.
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.
Keppel FELS Limited v International Coatings Pte Ltd (formerly known as Courtaulds Coatings Singapore Pte Ltd) and Another [2002] SGHC 115
The court held that the blistering of the paint was osmotic, caused by salt contamination on the steel surfaces prior to painting, and that the First Defendants breached their duty to provide proper technical advice and specifications for surface preparation.
PT Adaro Indonesia v Rabobank [2002] SGHC 114
An issuing bank cannot rely on discrepancies to refuse payment under a letter of credit if it is estopped by its own conduct, specifically where it has indicated it would refer discrepancies to the applicant for acceptance and the applicant has accepted them.
Lemon Grass Pte Ltd v Peranakan Place Complex Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 113
The court held that the tenancy agreement did not grant the plaintiffs an unfettered right of access through adjoining premises, and the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of an enforceable collateral contract or proprietary estoppel.