[Insolvency Law — Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Corporate Insolvency and Restructuring) Rules 2020 — Striking out]
X DIAMOND CAPITAL PTE LTD
[2023] SGHC 201 | Decision Date: 26 Jul 2023 | HC/OA 148/2023 ( HC/SUM 1990/2023 )
Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “EA”) does not apply to OA 148 because it is determined by affidavit evidence alone (see s 2(1) of the EA). In place of the EA, the applicable evidentiary framework will be rules of evidence at common law that are not inconsistent with the EA (see the High Court decision of HSBC Trustee (Singapore) Ltd v Lucky Realty Co Pte Ltd [2015] 3 SLR 885 (“HSBC Trustee”) at [56]). In this regard, it is relevant to refer to s 10(1) of the IRDA, which provides that “[i]n any matter of practice or procedure for which no specific provision has been made by [the IRDA], the procedure
[[Abuse of process] — [Henderson v Henderson doctrine] [Abuse of process] — [Inconsistent positions][Conflict of Laws] — [Foreign judgments][Res judicata] — [Issue estoppel]]
[2021] SGCA 14 | Decision Date: 26 Feb 2021 | CA/CA 223/2019 ( CA/SUM 67/2020 )
;ECA Decision, some issues were remitted to the HCEW,and that gave rise to a fourth decision, Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, Merck & Co Inc, Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Intervet UK Limited, Intervet International BV[2020] EWHC 1273 (Ch), which was issued after Suit415 was commenced. However, this latest decision was not relevantto the issues in this appeal,and we therefore say no more about it.9The
SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE 26 February 2021 Case summary Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (formerly known as Merck & Co, Inc) v Merck KGaA (formerly known as EMerck) [2021] SGCA 14Civil Appeal No223 of 2019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Decision of the Court of Appeal (delivered by Chief JusticeSundaresh Menon): Outcome: CoA dismisses the appeal and upholds the High Court’s decision that issue estoppel applies such that the appellant is bound by an earlier English decision
[Civil Procedure - Consent Judgment]
Ng Kiam Bee v Ng Bee Eng
[2013] SGHC 31 | Decision Date: 6 Feb 2013 | Suit No 873 of 2009 (Summons No 3849 of 2012 and Summons No 4094 of 2012)
Ng Kiam Bee v Ng Bee Eng [2013] SGHC 31Case Number:Suit No 873 of 2009 (Summons No 3849 of 2012 and Summons No 4094 of 2012)Decision Date:06 February 2013Tribunal/Court:High CourtCoram: Belinda Ang Saw Ean J Counsel Name(s): Keh Kee Guan (Pacific Law Corporation) for the plaintiff; Luke Lee (Luke Lee & Co) for the defendant. Parties: Ng Kiam Bee — Ng Bee Eng 6February2013Judgment reserved. Belinda Ang Saw Ean J: Introduction 1By
[Statutory Interpretation — Construction of statute — Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (2020 Rev Ed) ]
XU YUAN CHEN @ TERRY XU v ATTORNEY-GENERAL
[2023] SGHC 200 | Decision Date: 26 Jul 2023 | HC/OA 572/2023
In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2023] SGHC 200Originating Application No 572 of 2023BetweenXu Yuan Chen @ Terry Xu… Appellant AndAttorney-General… Respondentgrounds of decision[Statutory Interpretation — Construction of statute — Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (2020 Rev Ed)] 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 law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.Xu Yuan Chen (alias Terry Xu)vAttorney
[Contract — Breach] [Contract — Formation — Oral contracts] [Contract — Misrepresentation — Fraudulent] [Contract — Remedies — Damages — Measure of damages] [Contract — Remedies — Account of profits — AG v Blake] [Damages — Measure of damages — Contract — Expectation damages] [Damages — Measure of damages — Contract — Reliance damages ]
[2022] SGHC 25 | Decision Date: 28 Jan 2022 | HC/S 143/2020
In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2022] SGHC 25Suit No 143 of 2020 BetweenKoh Chew Chee … PlaintiffAnd(1)Liu Shu Ming(2)Tong Xin… Defendantsjudgment[Contract — Breach][Contract — Formation — Oral contracts] [Contract — Misrepresentation — Fraudulent] [Contract — Remedies — Damages — Measure of damages][Contract — Remedies — Account of profits — AG v Blake][Damages — Measure of damages — Contract — Expectation damages][Damages — Measure of damages — Contract — Reliance damages] This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court
[Abuse of Process — Henderson v Henderson doctrine] [Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Original jurisdiction] [Civil Procedure — Trial — Applications — Application for new trial]
[2022] SGCA 31 | Decision Date: 11 Apr 2022 | CA/OS 24/2021|CA/OS 25/2021
), Singapore Civil Procedure (2021) (Sweet & Maxwell, 2020) (“Civil Procedure”)) Vol 2 at para A/29A/1, citing the decision of this court in Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General [2014] 3 SLR 357 (“Au Wai Pang”)). Consequently, this court cannot and will not hear de novo applications. Instead, in granting relief to litigants, this court only exercises appellate jurisdiction (in the context of civil appeals; see s 53 of the SCJA), or incidental appellate jurisdiction (in certain applications where the Court of Appeal possesses all the jurisdiction and powers of the puisne court to determine matters which are
SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE11 April 2022Case summaryPradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another and another matter [2022] SGCA 31Originating Summonses Nos 24 and 25 of 2021--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Decision of the Court of Appeal (delivered by Justice of the Court of Appeal Andrew Phang Boon Leong):Outcome: CoA dismisses applications for retrials of two suits. Pertinent and significant points of the judgment• The Court of Appeal does not have the power to order a
[Family law — Maintenance — Former wife] [Family law ? Matrimonial assets ? Division — Application of structured approach in ANJ v ANK]
UJF v UJG
[2018] SGHCF 1 | Decision Date: 18 Jan 2018 | HCF/DT 1342/2013
In the FAMILY JUSTICE courtS of the republic of singapore [201] SGHCF Divorce (Transferred) No 1342 of 2013BetweenUJF… PlaintiffAndUJG… DefendantJUDGMENT[Family aw] [Matrimonial assets] [Division] — [Application of structured approach in ANJ v ANK[Family law] — [Maintenance]— [Former wife]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 law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore
[Tort - Negligence - Duty of care] [Tort - Rule in rylands v fletcher] [Tort - Negligence - Res ipsa loquitur] [Tort - Nuisance - Neighbouring properties]
Tesa Tape Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Wing Seng Logistics Pte Ltd
[2006] SGHC 73 | Decision Date: 3 May 2006 | Suit 209/2005
Tesa Tape Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Wing Seng Logistics Pte Ltd[2006] SGHC 73 Case Number : Suit 209/2005 Decision Date : 03 May 2006 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Choo Han Teck J Counsel Name(s) : Richard Kuek and Stephanie Wong (Gurbani & Co) for the plaintiff; Anparasan s/o Kamachi and Sharifa Nadia Almenoar (KhattarWong) for the defendant Parties : Tesa Tape Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
[Criminal Procedure and Sentencing - Sentencing - Principles]
Ng Geok Eng v Public Prosecutor
[2006] SGHC 232 | Decision Date: 21 Dec 2006 | MA 40/2006
tendering a list of sentencing precedents for the offences of false trading and engaging in a practice which operated as a deceit. No specific submissions on sentencing were made, and the Prosecution indicated that it was happy to leave the question of sentencing to the court.The District Judge’s decision21 In his Grounds of Decision, the District Judge held that the first and foremost consideration in sentencing is that of public interest: Ng Geok Eng v PP [2006] SGDC 110 (“Grounds”) at [17]. In relation to the appellant’s offence on the first charge of market rigging, he expressed the
[Family law — Maintenance of Wife — Former wife] [Family Law — Matrimonial Assets — Division — Application of structured approach in ANJ v ANK]
UBM v UBN
[2017] SGHCF 13 | Decision Date: 9 May 2017 | HCF/DT 3601/2015
: Developments in Singapore Law Between 2006 and 2010 (Yeo Tiong Min, Hans Tjio & Tang Hang Wu gen eds) (Academy Publishing, 2011) at pp 191–271 for the trends in division orders and noted a trend, in marriages more than ten years long, for working mothers with substantially less financial contributions to receive about 40% of the assets, which would be more than her direct financial contributions (at [13]–[16]). 44In Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim [2015] 2 SLR 195, the Court of Appeal observed that for marriages of between 17 to
