LITT
Try LITT free
LOH SIANG PIOW @ LOH CHAN PEW v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
at the old Tampines Stadium (which has since been demolished). They were held either in the morning starting from about 9am to 10am, or in the evening starting at about 4pm to 5pm. They lasted about 1½ hours.7 7 Ms C says that the incidents in the first and second charges occurred on the second
MICHAEL JON HARDMAN & Anor v SAIS LIMITED & Anor
the title of “Head of Partnership”.9 The employee share grant scheme 7 Before they agreed to join the Sarment Group, both the plaintiffs were separately informed by Mr Quentin Chiarugi (“Mr Chiarugi”), the defendants’ Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), that there were plans for a public listing and,
TRITECH WATER TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. & Anor v DUAN WEI
ritech Engineering & Testing (Singapore) Pte Ltd … Plaintiffs And (1) Duan Wei (2) Luo Zhuobiao … Defendants JUDGMENT [Tort — Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit] [Tort — Misrepresentation — Negligent misrepresentation] [Tort — Negligence] [Intellectual Property — Law of confidence — Breach of co
The "MMM Diana" ex "Able Director"
Derek Tan (Rajah and Tann) for plaintiff; Oon Thian Seng (T S Oon and Bazul) for defendants Parties : — Civil Procedure – Judgments and orders – Procedure for setting aside default judgment obtained pursuant to "unless order" – Whether judge in chambers should hear appeal against default judgment ob
Lawrence Li See Kit v Debate Association (Singapore)
GMENT [Administrative Law — Natural justice — Breach of fair hearing rule] [Administrative Law — Natural justice — Breach of rule against bias] [Tort — Negligence — Breach of duty] [Tort — Rule in Wilkinson v Downton] [Unincorporated Associations and Trade Unions — Societies — Membership — Breach o
HODLNAUT PTE. LTD.
cturing and Dissolution Act (No 40 of 2018) And In the matter of Sections 91, 92 and 99 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (No 40 of 2018) Hodlnaut Pte Ltd … Applicant BRIEF REMARKS [Insolvency Law — Judicial management — Interim judicial management] Version No 1: 31 Aug 2022
SOMPO INSURANCE SINGAPORE PTE. LTD. & Anor v TAY JIA YI & 2 Ors
that the phrase includes any accident that “bears a temporal relationship with the employment”.60 On this approach, the AC found that the heart attack had indeed occurred when Mr Tay was in the course of employment. He took the view that it was unnecessary to pin down exactly when Mr Tay suffere
AJEET GOBINDRAM VASWANI & Anor v SALVATORE GREGORY TAKOUSHIAN & 5 Ors
e Gregory Takoushian (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lau Chun Wah @ Davy Lau Carl Gabriel Florian Stubbe Tarun Kataria Tan Wee Peng Kelvin Ng Kheng Choo … Defendants GROUNDS OF DECISION [Civil Procedure — Privileges] Version No 3: 19 Apr 2023 (12:26 hrs) This judgment is subject to final editorial correction
The "Banga Borat"
1 The plaintiff, the National Credit And Commerce Bank Ltd, applied to enter summary judgment against the defendant, HRC Shipping Limited and to strike out its counterclaim. The Assistant Registrar who heard the application gave the defendant conditional leave to defend upon the provision of securit
INDIAN BANK v GREEN MINT PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors
[Civil Procedure] — [Summary judgment] — [Leave to defend] Version No 1: 25 Nov 2021 (10:01 hrs) [Credit And Security] — [Guarantees and indemnities] — [Enforcement of guarantee procured by bribery] Version No 1: 25 Nov 2021 (10:01 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..............................
Tan Soan Lian v Edwin Lee Yong Chuan
earlier." He was married by this time. 17. The husband argued that the LKTH and LKTI shares are not matrimonial assets under s 112(10), but I disagreed with him. The gift shares in the original companies were no longer in existence at the time of division. He had accepted the offer to exchange them
DOO WAN TSONG CHARLES & 4 Ors v OXLEY JASPER PTE. LTD. & Anor
, Lester (5) Yeo Seok Chin … Plaintiffs And (1) Oxley Jasper Pte Ltd (2) Yap Siew Kee … Defendants JUDGMENT [Contract] — [Discharge] — [Rescission] [Contract] — [Contractual terms] — [Condition precedent] [Equity] — [Remedies] — [Rectification] Version No 1: 05 Nov 2021 (10:52 hrs) ii TABLE OF CONTE
VIKTORIIA MYTSKY v MED TRAVEL PTE. LTD & Anor
the shares of Med Travel on behalf of Mr Liaskovskyi who is the true beneficial owner of the company.6 Ms Mytsyk alleges that Mr Anushka should have transferred 100% of these shares to Mr Liaskovskyi in November 2013 instead of transferring only 50%; and that Mr Anushka forged Mr Liaskovskyi’s s
DIALECTIC PR LLC v BRILLIANTE RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL PTE LIMITED & Anor
Brilliante Resources International Pte Limited Woon Joon Foong, Jerrel (Yun Junfeng, Jerrel) … Defendants JUDGMENT [Contract — Breach] [Companies — Incorporation of companies — Lifting corporate veil] [Tort — Inducement of breach of contract] Version No 2: 30 Mar 2023 (15:43 hrs)
W&P Piling Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Chew Yin What and Others
me(s) : Jeya Putra and Magdalene Chew (AsiaLegal LLC) for the plaintiff; Leslie Phua and Louis Lim (William Poh & Louis Lim) for the first and second defendants; Tan Cheow Hin (CH & Partners) for the third defendant Parties : W&P Piling Pte Ltd (in liquidation) — Chew Yin What; Lee Kok Swee; Yeung C
CJD v CJE & Anor
that it did not have the jurisdiction to join the 2nd defendant to the Arbitration. The plaintiff received the Decision via email on 23 October 2019.12 17 The core of the Tribunal’s reasoning in the Decision was laid out in five paragraphs which I reproduce below: 126. The Tribunal considers tha
SHINHAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION v YAP SHI WEN & 4 Ors
held by Oasis Buona Limited (“Oasis”), a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which was wholly owned by Aurora BVI. 4 The acquisition was brokered by Fundnel. The parties agreed that an intermediary, SC Global Vision Fund SPC (“South China”), would be used to purchase the shares on behalf
The "Ivanovo"
t (C Arul & Partners) for the plaintiffs; Oon Thian Seng and Juliana Yap (Joseph Tan Jude Benny) for the defendants/interveners Parties : — Admiralty and Shipping – Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest – Ownership of vessels – Certificate of registration of vessel – Identity of vessel's beneficial owne
Tsarkov Oleg Igorevich & 23 Ors v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel AMBASSADOR (IMO No. 9127148)
Nikolaevich (3) Phatsia Archil Nugzaris-Dze (4) Devadze Irakli (5) Stefanidi Evgeny Vladimirovich (6) Gorodnichiy Nikolay Viktorovich (7) Mamonov Oleg Borisovich (8) Perezva Vadim Valentinovich (9) Beridze Irakli Tariel (10) Timakhov Vladimir Viktorovich (11) Lavrinenko Vladimir Invanovich (12) Rodi
BZV v BZW & Anor
that the period stipulated in Art 33(1)(b) of the Model Law for the plaintiff to make a request for interpretation had expired on 29 November 2018 and did restart on 16 January 2019 when the tribunal disposed of the plaintiff’s request for 5 Plaintiff’s affidavit at p 1275, para 4; Notes of Arg
THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE v NAIDU PRIYALATHA
The following summary of the facts comes from the agreed statement of facts presented to the DT. 6 The Respondent was admitted to the bar on 8 October 1980. At the material time, she was the sole proprietor of the firm Messrs P. Naidu. Chang Lien Siang and Ng Kar Kui (collectively, “the Clients”)
LIANG XIHONG v LOONG SOO MIN & Anor
in China. Sandy acknowledged that she had received S$1.9m as at the date of the Deed of Settlement. The Deed of Settlement did not deal with the shares in the Three Companies and Ken Precision. 21 On 15 May 2014, Sandy commenced divorce proceedings against Sam in FC/D 2222 of 2014 (“D 2222”) on
ONG CHAI KOON & 4 Ors v ONG CHAI SOON
at the Hougang shophouse. There is an audio recording of the meeting, which lasted more than two and a half hours.19 For most of the meeting, things were fractious, and there was plenty of shouting and arguing. Many longstanding family issues were raised. Towards the end of the meeting, the defe
CHAN HUI PENG v PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
SUMMARY OF THE COURT’S DECISION...............................................4 ISSUES..............................................................................................................4 THE APPLICABLE RULES OF COURT ....................................................5 WHY DID MR SIM GO