Submit Article
Legal Analysis. Regulatory Intelligence. Jurisprudence.
Singapore

Wong Kok Keong @ Wong Kock Khiang v 1.CBN Holdings Pte Ltd; 2.Lee Sook Chin; 3.Leaw Kok Yin [2001] SGHC 148

In Wong Kok Keong @ Wong Kock Khiang v 1.CBN Holdings Pte Ltd; 2.Lee Sook Chin; 3.Leaw Kok Yin, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of No catchword.

Case Details

  • Citation: [2001] SGHC 148
  • Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
  • Date: 2001-06-22
  • Judges: S Rajendran J
  • Plaintiff/Applicant: Wong Kok Keong @ Wong Kock Khiang
  • Defendant/Respondent: 1.CBN Holdings Pte Ltd; 2.Lee Sook Chin; 3.Leaw Kok Yin
  • Legal Areas: No catchword
  • Statutes Referenced: None specified
  • Cases Cited: [2001] SGHC 148, [2001] SGHC 149
  • Judgment Length: 1 page, 75 words

Summary

This brief judgment from the High Court of Singapore addresses a procedural matter related to the citation of a previous case. The court notes that the citation for a prior case, Wong Kok Keong @ Wong Kock Khiang v CBN Holdings Pte Ltd & Ors, has been reassigned from [2001] SGHC 148 to [2001] SGHC 149. No other details about the substance of the case are provided.

What Were the Facts of This Case?

The judgment does not specify any factual details about the underlying case. It only addresses the administrative matter of the citation reassignment for a previous case between the same parties.

The judgment does not identify any specific legal issues. It simply notes the change in citation for the prior case between the same parties.

How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?

Since the judgment does not describe any substantive legal issues, there is no analysis provided. The court merely states the fact of the citation reassignment.

What Was the Outcome?

The outcome of this judgment is simply the court's note that the citation for the prior case between these parties has been changed from [2001] SGHC 148 to [2001] SGHC 149. No other orders or dispositions are mentioned.

Why Does This Case Matter?

This brief judgment has limited practical significance, as it only addresses a technical, administrative matter of case citation. It does not establish any new legal principles or precedents. The main relevance is to update the official record and ensure accurate citation of the prior case between these parties.

For legal practitioners, this judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of verifying case citations, as citation information can sometimes be retroactively updated by the courts. When researching past cases, it is crucial to double-check that the citation provided matches the official court records.

Legislation Referenced

  • None specified

Cases Cited

  • [2001] SGHC 148
  • [2001] SGHC 149

Source Documents

This article analyses [2001] SGHC 148 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.

Written by Sushant Shukla

More in

Legal Wires

Legal Wires

Stay ahead of the legal curve. Get expert analysis and regulatory updates natively delivered to your inbox.

Success! Please check your inbox and click the link to confirm your subscription.