LITT
Try LITT free
Tan Cheng Cheng and others v Shamlal s/o Tuppani Bisaysar and another [2024] SGHC 181
The court held that the act of handing over a chattel to a third party does not constitute conversion unless the act discloses an intention to exercise dominion over the chattel to the exclusion of the owner. In this case, the respondent's act of leaving the deceased's watch at t
Tang Swea Phing v Chan Tam Hoi (alias Paul Chan) and another appeal [2024] SGHC 167
A principal is liable for defamatory statements made by an agent if the statements are made in the course of representing the principal within the scope of the agent's actual or apparent authority, even if the agent is an independent contractor.
DCA v DCB [2024] SGHC 154
In DCA v DCB, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Tort — Negligence.
Dways International Pte Ltd (formerly known as D’way International Pte Ltd and as Longevite Pte Ltd) v Lim Seow Hui Ratna Irene and others [2024] SGHC 124
The Singapore High Court partially allowed an appeal in Dways International v Lim Seow Hui Ratna Irene [2024] SGHC 124, reducing damages for misappropriation and defamation. The court emphasized that defamation awards must be calibrated to the specific severity of allegations rather than broad prece
Chen Qiming v Huttons Asia Pte Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 103
The court dismissed claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of statutory duty, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged representations were made or that they caused the pleaded losses, and that the Estate Agents Act doe
Crapper Ian Anthony v Salmizan bin Abdullah [2024] SGCA 21
In Crapper Ian Anthony v Salmizan bin Abdullah, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders, Tort — Negligence.
Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet and others [2023] SGHC 96
The Singapore High Court dismissed all claims in Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet [2023] SGHC 96, ruling that participants in a Ponzi scheme do not owe a duty of care to one another. The court held that fellow investors are not liable for losses, emphasizing the need for independent due diligence.
Salmizan bin Abdullah v Crapper, Ian Anthony [2023] SGHC 75
In bifurcated personal injury motor accident cases, causation is an essential element of liability that must be established to obtain an interlocutory judgment; therefore, it cannot be reserved to the assessment of damages stage, and a defendant is precluded from challenging caus
Pappa w/o Veeramuthu v National University Health Services Group Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 70
The court held that the respondent breached its duty of care by failing to ensure a fall-risk patient was properly seated and failing to ensure the emergency call bell was within reach.
The Enterprise Fund III Ltd and another v CNPLaw LLP (formerly known as Colin Ng & Partnership) [2023] SGHC 345
The court dismissed the negligence claim against the defendant law firm, finding that the firm had advised the plaintiffs on the statutory prohibition against share buybacks and that the plaintiffs' losses were not caused by any breach of duty by the firm.
Lam Wing Yee Jane v Realstar Premier Group Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 344
A property agent who merely acts as a conduit in forwarding marketing materials provided by the seller, without making independent representations, does not breach their duty of care if they do not independently verify the contents of those materials, especially where the purchas
Don King Martin (trading as King Excursion & Transport Provider) v Lenny Arjan Singh [2023] SGHC 334
The conversion period does not end when a tortfeasor loses possession of the chattel due to a third party's seizure, unless the tortfeasor has taken steps to allow the owner to reclaim it. The tortfeasor remains liable for the loss of the chattel as a reasonably foreseeable conse
Karan Bagga v Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute [2023] SGHC 322
In Karan Bagga v Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Tort — Defamation.
M Badiuzzaman and others v Salma Islam and others [2023] SGHC 311
In M Badiuzzaman v Salma Islam [2023] SGHC 311, the High Court awarded general damages for defamation but dismissed the claim for special damages, ruling that the claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence linking the cancellation of a loan facility to the defendants' defamatory statements.
Value Monetization III Ltd v Lim Beng Choo and another matter (Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd and others, third parties) [2023] SGHC 303
The Singapore High Court dismissed appeals in Value Monetization III Ltd v Lim Beng Choo, affirming the striking out of third-party claims as time-barred. The court ruled the claims were an abuse of process, as they attempted to re-litigate factual findings settled in previous proceedings.
Voltas Ltd v Ng Theng Swee and another [2023] SGHC 245
A director is not liable for conspiracy with their company unless they act in breach of their personal legal duties to the company.
Foo Diana v Woo Mui Chan [2023] SGHC 221
The defendant is liable for defamation for statements made on the Law Society of Singapore's Google page and in a formal complaint to the Law Society, as the defences of justification and qualified privilege were defeated by the lack of truth and the presence of malice respective
Dr Who Waterworks Pte Ltd and others v Dr Who (M) Sdn Bhd and others [2023] SGHC 156
The court held that the defendants infringed the plaintiffs' trade marks and committed passing off by using signs similar to the plaintiffs' registered marks in Singapore, and that the defendants were liable for breach of the Deed.
Gaelic Inns Pte Ltd v Patrick Lee PAC [2007] SGHC 13
An auditor is liable for losses caused by fraud if they negligently fail to detect the fraud and fail to warn the company's management, provided the loss is a direct consequence of the breach.
Gobi Nadhan a/l Balakrishnan v Tan Chin Sian [2007] SGHC 57
The court apportioned liability for a traffic accident, finding the defendant liable but attributing 15% contributory negligence to the plaintiff.
Kwek Peck Ying v Loh Kwang Chay (Chen Hui Jie, Third Party) [2007] SGHC 56
The court found the defendant wholly liable for a traffic accident after rejecting his testimony and evidence of his guilty plea to dangerous driving.
Ngiam Kong Seng and Another v CityCab Pte Ltd and Another [2007] SGHC 38
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for personal injuries and psychiatric trauma, finding that the accident was caused by the first plaintiff's own negligence and that the second plaintiff's claim for psychiatric injury was too remote.
Ng Hock Heng v Looi Kok Poh and Another [2007] SGHC 25
The court held that a workman is not precluded by s 18(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act from claiming damages against a doctor or hospital for injuries caused by negligent medical treatment, as such injuries do not arise out of and in the course of employment.
Koh Siang Hong v Hum Weng Fong [2007] SGHC 218
The court held the defendant liable for two-thirds of the damages in a collision case, finding the defendant more culpable for failing to maintain proper lookout and speed despite wet road conditions.