LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

Jeyasegaram David (alias David Gerald Jeyasegaram) v Ban Song Long David [2004] SGHC 225

In Jeyasegaram David v Ban Song Long David [2004] SGHC 225, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's defamation claim, ruling that inferential evidence of ill will is insufficient to overcome the defences of qualified privilege and fair comment without concrete proof of express malice.

Sushant Shukla· ·7 min read
Singapore

Lo Lee Len v Grand Interior Renovation Works Pte Ltd and Others [2004] SGHC 22

Gratuitous collateral benefits (such as insurance payments or taxi allowances) that are not insurance payments do not necessarily offend the rule against double recovery if the plaintiff is under a legal obligation to account for them to the third party.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Lee Kwan Kok and Another v Wong Chan Tong [2004] SGHC 211

The court assessed damages for a fatal accident claim, determining the appropriate multiplier and multiplicand for dependency and rejecting claims for special damages that were not proven.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Zhang Xiao Ling (personal representative of the Estate of Chan Tak Man, deceased) v Er Swee Poo and Another [2004] SGHC 21

The court assessed damages for loss of dependency by calculating the deceased's average monthly earnings from two jobs, applying a 25% deduction for personal expenses, and apportioning the remaining income between the widow and four children.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Zubaida Binte Hussain and Others v Tan Sze Joo [2004] SGHC 207

The court held that the Plaintiff's depression was primarily caused by her mother's death rather than the accident, and thus disallowed claims for loss of earnings and future medical expenses.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Cheong Ghim Fah and Another v Murugian s/o Rangasamy [2004] SGHC 19

The court held that a motorist who runs down a pedestrian from the rear is liable for negligence unless they can prove they were keeping a proper lookout and were not speeding. The court also held that a breach of the Highway Code by a pedestrian does not automatically negate the

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd v Rankine and Hill (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 178

The court held that an action in negligence should be commenced by way of a writ of summons rather than an originating summons when particulars of negligence and damage are required. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove damage, which is a necessary elem

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Stratech Systems Ltd v Nyam Chiu Shin (Yan Qiuxin) and Others [2004] SGHC 168

The court held that the third defendant was liable for inducing a breach of contract by the first and second defendants, but awarded only nominal damages as the plaintiff suffered no real or substantial damage.

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Diva XL Pte Ltd v Goenka Mahesh Kumar [2004] SGHC 143

In Diva XL Pte Ltd v Goenka Mahesh Kumar [2004] SGHC 143, the High Court held a director personally liable for inducing a breach of contract. The court rejected the defendant's good faith defense, ruling that he acted as the company's alter ego for personal gain, ordering judgment for the plaintiff.

Sushant Shukla· ·7 min read
Singapore

Muhamad Ilyas Bin Mirza Abdul Hamid v Kwek Khim Hui [2004] SGHC 12

The court assessed damages for a plaintiff who suffered serious head injuries in a motorcycle accident, awarding a global sum for pain and suffering and loss of amenities to avoid overlap, and awarding damages for loss of scholarship and loss of earning capacity based on the plai

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

T J Systems (S) Pte Ltd and Others v Ngow Kheong Shen [2003] SGHC 73

The court held that the defendant's e-mail was defamatory of the plaintiffs and that the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege were not made out.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Samwoh Resources Pte Ltd v Lee Ah Poh [2003] SGHC 69

A person is liable in the tort of deceit if they knowingly or recklessly make a false statement to another with the intent that it be acted upon, and the other party acts upon it and suffers damage.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Trans-World (Aluminium) Ltd v Cornelder China (Singapore) [2003] SGHC 56

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation by the defendants, as the defendants did not make the alleged representations and there was no reliance by the plaintiffs on any such representations in entering the contract.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Macquarie Corporate Telecommunications Pte Ltd v Phoenix Communications Pte Ltd and Another [2003] SGHC 314

The court held that the second defendant's statements were defamatory and that the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege failed due to malice.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Ng Ah Lek v The Personal Representatives of Low Keng Suang @ Low Tai Kheng, deceased [2003] SGHC 310

The court assessed damages for a plaintiff who suffered severe injuries in a motorcycle accident, including paralysis and fractures, and determined compensation for pain and suffering, future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, and maid expenses.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Kwok Seng Fatt Jeremy v Choy Chee Hau [2003] SGHC 308

The court assessed damages for a plaintiff who suffered paralysis and other injuries in a road accident, determining appropriate multipliers and addressing claims for future medical, nursing, and transport expenses.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG [2003] SGHC 305

The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant's officers made misrepresentations that caused him loss, and that the plaintiff had been adequately advised on the risks of the DFF Strategy.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

The "Sunrise Crane" [2003] SGHC 291

This case establishes that vessel owners transporting dangerous goods owe a duty of care to third parties. Owners must provide reasonable warnings regarding the nature of the cargo, especially when the risks are not obvious to those coming into contact with it.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Ong Bin Wah v Quek Teng Pong and Another [2003] SGHC 279

The court assessed damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, including general damages for pain and suffering, pre-trial loss of earnings, and loss of earning capacity.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Tan Yong Heng Jeffrey v Tay Kiah Por [2003] SGHC 278

The decision in Tan Yong Heng Jeffrey v Tay Kiah Por [2003] SGHC 278 provides a rigorous examination of the principles governing the assessment of damages in personal injury litigation, specifically within the context of specialized vocational roles. The dispute arose from a moto

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Lee Theng Yiow v Ismail bin Muhamad [2003] SGHC 259

The court assessed damages for the estate and dependants following a fatal accident, rejecting claims for loss of use of a car where insurance was received and adjusting dependency claims based on the deceased's likely return to work.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Tech Pacific (S) Pte Ltd v Pritam Kaur d/o Joginder Singh formerly trading as Eshar Security Services and Another [2003] SGHC 242

A landlord is not liable for theft of a tenant's goods in the absence of an express contractual term, and a security guard's failure to prevent theft is not a culpable omission unless there is proof of a specific negligent act.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Ang Leng Hock v Leo Ee An [2003] SGHC 240

The court assessed damages for a plaintiff involved in a road traffic accident, determining pre-trial loss of earnings based on under-declared income and awarding general damages for pain and suffering based on medical evidence.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

De Cruz Andrea Heidi v Guangzhou Yuzhitang Health Products Co Ltd and Others [2003] SGHC 229

A director can be personally liable for a tort committed by the company if they directed or procured the commission of the tort, and the importer/distributor of a product owes a duty of care to consumers to ensure product safety.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read