LITT
Try LITT free
ENJIN PTE LTD v LILIA PRITCHARD
past that day, she would assume that Enjin had no intention of ever transferring it to her.26 At 7.54 pm on 22 April 2020, Ms Pritchard sent a letter of resignation to the Enjin team, stating that she was leaving the company with great regret because Mr Blagov and Mr Radomski were refusing to giv
TAN PENG KWANG t/a EUROPE MINI HOLIDAY (Singapore UEN No. 52905119B) v ZIMERICK LLP
that the appellant was not entitled to hold the respondent in breach of the Contract. He found that it was the appellant who was in breach when they failed to pay the respondent for the work already done to develop the app for the Android and iPad platforms, and that the appellant ought to have
Public Prosecutor v Ong Phee Hoon James
that the appellant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that Faruk and Ansar were illegal immigrants. Even if Faruk and Ansar had sub-let the premises to the five illegal immigrants without the knowledge of the appellant, the appellant should not be absolved from liablity for harbouring the sub
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Ng Yi Yao (Huang Yiyao)
two jobs while studying part-time for a degree: one job was that of assistant to a private banker, the other was that of a part-time social escort who provided sexual services in return for monetary payment.4 V’s agent (“A”) would arrange appointments with clients for her.5 Background 5 The agree
CLM v CLN & 6 Ors
in the wallet cannot be accessed. As there are more than a billion permutations for what a private key may be, it is virtually impossible for one to guess the private key of a digital wallet.8 13 Given the risks associated with the loss of the private key, most private keys are backed up by a “re
Malcolm Tan Chun Chuen v BEACH HOTEL PTE LTD & Anor
via a nominee and a director of the subject company. Indeed, a nominee’s interest in the company is clear and obvious. 10 In the present case, by way of the written declaration of trust, the plaintiff is plainly the beneficial owner of the 100,000 issued shares of the 1st defendant. As a benefic
WYNO Marine Pte Ltd (In Liquidation) v Lim Teck Cheng and Others (Koh Chye Heng and Others, Third Parties)
93 and 6894 of 1999 Decision Date : 18 January 2000 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Choo Han Teck JC Counsel Name(s) : K Shanmugam SC and Ashok Kumar [Allen & Gledhill] for the plaintiffs; S Selvam [Ramdas & Wong] for the 1st, 2nd and 6th defendants; Monoj Kumar Roy [Roy & Partners] for the 1st
SRIRAM S/O SEEVALINGAM v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ent EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT [Criminal Law — Offences — Cheating] [Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing] Version No 1: 17 Aug 2022 (17:12 hrs) This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the
Feima International (Hongkong) Limited (in liquidation) v Kyen Resources Pte. Ltd. (in liquidation) & 2 Ors
Summary of the overall position involving the need for more evidence for cases involving related companies..........................................................................51 (2) Application to the present case ...................................................53 (A) No need for a wholesa
Leo Teng Kit and Others v Leo Teng Choy
property is held by the first plaintiff and the defendant as executors and trustees of the Will on trust for the first, second and third plaintiffs as well as for the defendant; b. that it may be determined whether the beneficiaries under the trust are beneficially interested in the property as tena
The "Hyundai Fortune"
responsible for the plaintiffs’ loss and damage. The Partlow chart is a chart that records the temperature of the reefer container. It showed that at certain stages of the transit, the consignment was not refrigerated at the pre-set temperature of 3°C. There was no response at all to the plaintiffs’
PETROCHINA INTERNATIONAL (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel OCEAN WINNER (IMO No. 9242479)
laintiff And Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel “Ocean Winner” … Defendant Admiralty in Rem No 87 of 2020 (Summons No 1913 of 2020) Between PetroChina International (Singapore) Pte Ltd … Plaintiff And Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel “Chao Hu” … Defendant Version No 2: 18 Ja
CHNG KHENG CHYE v KAEFER INTEGRATED SERVICES PTE. LTD.
SUMMARY OF THE DEFENDANT’S DEFENCE REGARDING ITS ENTITLEMENT TO THE DISPUTED SUM...........................................................47 THE COMPANY’S ENTITLEMENT TO THE DISPUTED SUM ...............................49 Version No 1: 09 Feb 2023 (18:08 hrs) iii The Payment Arrangement............
CTA
And In the matter of Rule 25 of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011 Monisha Devaraj … Applicant AND Admission of Advocates and Solicitors No 22 of 2022 In the matter of Section 12 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 And In the matter of Rule 25 of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011 Kus
TEO CHU HA @ HENRY TEO v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
the role of Senior Director of Logistics. He was additionally a member of the Seagate committee which oversaw two tenders for the provision of transportation services to ferry Seagate’s goods in China in 2006 and 2009 (“the 2006 Tender” and “the 2009 Tender” respectively).5 8 Three trucking route
KWEK HONG LIM (GUO FENGLIN) v KWEK SUM CHUAN
shareholding, 5% is held by the plaintiff’s mother (50,000 shares), and 2% (20,000 shares) by his sister, Ms Kwek Joo Sim (“Ms Kwek”).2 In 2003, the Property was purchased in the name of one of the defendant’s companies, Kwek Sum Chuan Holding Pte Ltd (“KSC Holding”).3 The Company used the Prope
LEE WEI LING & Anor v THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE
a hearing on 22 July 2020 to hear Ms Kwa’s explanations.17 In the Second IC Report, the IC was of the unanimous view that the First Complaint should be dismissed on the basis that the documentary evidence failed to demonstrate that Mr Lee “had expressly intended for all of his prior Wills to be
David Haw Wan Sin & Anor v Wendy Kwek Siang Ling & 6 Ors
liable for the losses suffered by the Plaintiffs. Background facts The parties 5 The First Plaintiff is Haw Wan Sin David (“David”). The Second Plaintiff is David’s wife, Yee Ai Moi Cindy (“Cindy”). 6 The First Defendant is Kwek Siang Ling Wendy (“Wendy”). The Second Defendant is Poh Wei Leo
MKY CAPITAL PTE LTD v MDR LIMITED
DS OF DECISION [Credit And Security] — [Mortgage of real property] — [Discharge of mortgage] [Credit And Security] — [Mortgage of real property] — [Mortgagor’s rights] [Contract] — [Contractual terms] — [Rules of construction] [Contract] — [Contractual terms] — [Parol evidence rule] Version No
KOK ZHEN YEN & Anor v BETH CANDICE WU
Wu … Defendant GROUNDS OF DECISION [Land — Caveats — Remedies of caveatee — Caveator claiming contractual right to sale proceeds of land — Whether contractual right to sale proceeds is an interest in sale proceeds of land — Section 115(3)(a) Land Titles Act 1993 (2020 Rev Ed)] [Land — Caveats — W
Gulf International Holding Pte. Ltd. v Delta Offshore Energy Pte Ltd
75% of the paid-up share capital of Delta at the time). The Project falls under a new governmental program for major infrastructure developments and was (and still is) regarded as a high-profile, nationally important project to Vietnam; it is furthermore part of a pilot for a new model of financi
TANOTO SAU IAN v USP GROUP LIMITED
on 21 April 2023, I reserved my decision for a short time to consider the parties’ arguments carefully. 3 In OA 218 that I heard earlier, USP Group seeks a primary declaration that the Requisitionists are not “members” of USP Group for the purposes of s 176(1) of the Companies Act. Consequently
The "Acrux"
the hearing, I upheld the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar, Ms Thian Yee Sze, and dismissed the defendant’s appeal. I now publish my reasons. 2 On 2 April 2004, the plaintiff, Schaar & Niemeyer (Far East) Pte Ltd, commenced in rem proceedings against the Acrux whose registered owner at all
RATAN KUMAR RAI v SEAH HOCK THIAM & 2 Ors
SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND DECISION.................................................28 ISSUES...........................................................................................................28 DECISION .............................................................................................