LITT
Try LITT free
LIM TONG ZHEN KEVRYN (LIN TONGZHEN) v CHEO JEAN SHENG & 2 Ors
SUMMARY OF THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE ON MINORITY OPPRESSION ................................................................................................43 THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY (IF THE MINORITY OPPRESSION ACTION IS MADE OUT) ..................................................43 CONCLUSION..........
BHARAT FORGE LIMITED v BOMBARDIER AEROSPACE SERVICES SINGAPORE PTE LTD
rvices Singapore Pte Ltd … Defendant JUDGMENT [Civil Procedure — Costs — Indemnity costs] [Contract — Breach] [Contract — Contractual terms — Implied terms] [Contract — Contractual terms — Unfair Contract Terms Act] [Damages — Measure of damages — Contract] [Tort — Negligence — Duty of care] Versio
LOW ENG CHAI v ISHAK BIN MOHAMED BASHEERE & 2 Ors
separate suit (HC/S 189/2019) and have since obtained summary judgment against ASMC for the full sum that is owed to them amounting to S$616,700. Version No 1: 29 Aug 2022 (11:27 hrs) Low Eng Chai v Ishak bin Mohamed Basheere [2022] SGHC 207 2 In the present action, the plaintiffs seek to recover
CHENG HIAP CHOON & 2 Ors v MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF MCST 3001
nd Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3001 … Respondent GROUNDS OF DECISION [Land — Strata titles — Management council] Version No 2: 28 Mar 2022 (16:05 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 THE FR
POS MARITIME NX S.A. & Anor v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel CARAKA JAYA NIAGA III-11 (IMO No. 9018359)
that there was a valid and existing counterclaim that he could take into account for the purposes of assessing the legal costs for determining the apportionment of liability for the collision and consequently, what the appropriate cost order should be. It is also pertinent to note that unlike th
WINGCROWN INVESTMENT PTE. LTD. v MANNEPALLI GAYATRI RAM
SUMMARY OF QUANTUM OF DAMAGES ASSESSED.......................25 COSTS.............................................................................................................26 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................26 Version No
SHEE SEE KUEN & 5 Ors v SUGIONO WIYONO SUGIALAM & 9 Ors
that punitive damages is a “response to conduct which is beyond the pale and therefore deserving of special condemnation,” and hence “may be awarded in tort where the totality of the defendant’s conduct is so outrageous that it warrants punishment, deterrence, and condemnation” (at [176]). The p
The "Endurance 1" ex "Tokai Maru"
to be of no consequence. The action was filed on 19 October 1995 by Adm 582/95. Cotan Petroleum claimed US$571,200 (US$800 x 714 days) for breach of charterparty in failing to provide a vessel according to the requirements of the time-charter. In the alternative they claimed US$836,400 (US$1,200 x 6
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Low Sze Song & Sivaprakash Krishnan
iminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act] Version No 1: 14 Apr 2023 (14:08 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS FACTS...............................................................................................................1 THE PARTIES’ CASES.................................................
JSD CORPORATION PTE LTD v TRI-LINE EXPRESS PTE LTD
Summary............................................................................41 Application of the law as concluded to the present case..........................45 (1) The appellant has failed to show an intention to carry out the outstanding repairs ..........................................
THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE v WILLJUDE VIMALRAJ S/O RAYMOND SURAS
that an act of false attestation necessarily involves dishonesty given that the person has asserted a fact or state of affairs that he knew to be untrue: Chia Choon Yang at [15]. Similarly, in relation to the false evidence charge, the respondent pleaded guilty to and was convicted of “intention
DB International Trust (Singapore) Limited v Medora Xerxes Jamshid & Anor
that the principles articulated in Petroships in relation to s 302 apply equally to s 174 of the IRDA, which is derived from s 302 (at [99]). 11 More broadly, given the similarity in wording between ss 268(1) and 302 of the Companies Act (and, correspondingly, ss 139(1) and 174 of the IRDA), Co
Jesse Remalmog & 2 Ors v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel SEVILLA KNUTSEN (IMO No. 9414632)
over from the first tranche. The parties’ cases 17 The parties agree that the Incident left ten distinct scars on the Reef (see Figure 2 above at [4]). In this judgment, the scars will be referred to as Scars 1 to 10, with Scar 1 being the northernmost scar and Scar 10 the southernmost. It is
LIM LAI SOON V TAN HONG SIN & 8 ORS
SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ CASES.....................................................7 THE PLAINTIFF ................................................................................................7 THE FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH AND NINTH DEFENDANTS .....................11 THE SIXTH DEFENDANT ......
SYED SUHAIL BIN SYED ZIN & 10 Ors v ATTORNEY GENERAL & Anor
to account, and not given any special privilege of having their identities shielded.13 Nevertheless, after the voluntary disclosures made by the AG identifying the affected Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs no longer seek discovery or interrogatories in respect of any contemplated declaratory relief or
SPACESATS PTE. LTD. v CHAN CHIA SERN & 5 Ors
in Dr Chan’s name. Vodien is a service provider which hosted the plaintiff’s e-mail and web hosting accounts.9 Further, the plaintiff sought to have Mr Goh Wei Jie (“Mr Goh”), its other director, appointed as an administrator of the plaintiff’s CorpPass account. This was so that the plaintiff co
CHEN MINGXING & 4 Ors v ZHANG JIAN & 5 Ors
Summary...................................................................................................44 ADEQUACY OF DAMAGES AND BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE............................................................................................44 PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS ............................
SAI WAN SHIPPING LIMITED v LANDMARK LINE CO., LTD.
in relation to an arbitration under the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) conducted under the Singapore Institute of Architects Arbitration Rules, that the arbitrator acted within his powers in 27 Plaintiff’s Written Submissions dated 25 November 2021 at paras 64–66. 28 Plaintiff’s Written
SHENG LING HUO v ORTHOSPORTS@NOVENA & 2 Ors
that the issue of causation was one arising from legal policy which a judge must decide (at [85]). 10 In the present case, Mr Sheng was 68 years old at the time, and had a bad knee that troubled him. It was a problem that could be alleviated with a total knee replacement. The surgery carried a ri
The "Virgo I" ex "Kapitan Voloshin"
the defendants (Respondents in NM 251/99); Khoo Kah Ho and Lim Tanguy Yuteck (Fabian & Khoo) for the second interveners; Leong Kah Wah (Joseph Tan Jude Benny) for creditor who had obtained a stop order in Adm in Rem 774/98 Parties : Plaintiff — Defendant — Third Party JUDGMENT: Grounds of Decision T
LIM SZE WEI (LIN SIHUI) & Anor v LIM CHUAN WEI (LIN CHUANWEI)
the legal estate in joint tenancy together with Chuan Wei.4 It is not disputed that neither the joint tenancy was ever severed.5 Thus, the question is whether the beneficial interest in the properties was held on a joint tenancy so that both properties passed to Chuan Wei legally and beneficiall
CHIA SOO KIANG (SUING AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND SUCCESSOR OF TAN YAW LAN, DECEASED) v TAN TOCK SENG HOSPITAL PTE. LTD. & 3 Ors
aintiff And (1) Tan Tock Seng Hospital Pte Ltd (2) Dr Dorai Raj D. Appadorai (3) Dr Lee Wei Sheng (4) Dr Ranjana Acharya … Defendants JUDGMENT [Civil procedure – Costs – Quantum] Version No 1: 10 Mar 2023 (11:10 hrs) This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Yeo Liang Hou & Nagaiah Rao A/L Alumanar
r GROUNDS OF DECISION [Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act] [Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Statements — Admissibility] Version No 2: 07 Jun 2023 (21:19 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..............................................................................
SINGAPORE CEMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED v COMPTROLLER OF INCOME TAX
1(2) of the Income Tax Act And In the matter of Section 81(2) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134) And In the Matter of a Grounds of Decision dated 29 August 2022 made in Income Tax Board of Review Appeal No 3 of 2019 Between Singapore Cement Manufacturing Company (Private) Limited … Applicant And Comptr