Singapore Court Judgments
Showing 10 of 9,503 judgments
WVS v WVT: Division of Matrimonial Assets, Custody, Care and Control, and Child Maintenance Dispute
In WVS v WVT, the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by the Wife against the decision of the Judge of the Family Division regarding the division of matrimonial assets, custody, care and control, and child maintenance. The court dismissed the appeal, save for a correction of a typographical error regarding the valuation of the Teck Whye property. The Wife was ordered to pay the Husband the costs of the appeal fixed at $45,000.
Iskandar v Public Prosecutor: Sentencing Guidelines for Guilty Pleas in Drug Trafficking Cases
In Iskandar bin Jinan v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed the application of the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s (SAP) Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas (“PG Guidelines”) in drug trafficking cases. Iskandar and Mohd Farid Merican bin Maiden appealed their sentences for drug trafficking offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court dismissed Iskandar's appeal and allowed Farid's appeal in part, reducing his global sentence from 31 years to 30 years, clarifying the utility and proper application of the PG Guidelines for drug trafficking and drug importation offences.
Masoud Rahimi v Public Prosecutor: Application for Stay of Execution in Capital Case
Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 27 November 2024 for a stay of execution and permission to file a post-appeal application in a capital case (PACC). The application was based on a clemency petition, a complaint against his former counsel, and fresh evidence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application on 28 November 2024, finding no reasonable prospect of success for the PACC.
Zipmex Pte Ltd v Zipmex Asia Pte Ltd: Setting Aside Creditors’ Meeting Resolutions for Substantive Irregularities
Zipmex Pte Ltd (“ZPL”) applied to the High Court of Singapore to set aside resolutions passed at a creditors’ meeting of Zipmex Asia Pte Ltd (“ZAPL”), arguing substantive irregularities. The court allowed ZPL's application, set aside the resolutions, and will appoint a liquidator. ZAPL's application for a declaration of validity was dismissed. The court found that the provisional liquidator improperly adjudicated proofs of debt and that the meeting was improperly conducted.
Udenna Corp v Pertamina: Setting Aside Service of Process in International Arbitration Enforcement
The Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed Udenna Corporation's application for permission to appeal the decision of the judge below in SIC/SUM 27/2024, which concerned Udenna's attempt to set aside the service of originating process in SIC/OA 23/2023. OA 23 was an application by Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd to recognise and enforce a Final Award against Udenna as a third-party guarantor. Udenna argued that the service was invalid due to issues with the address, person, entity, and method of service, claiming it was contrary to Philippine law and the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the certificate of service was prima facie evidence of effective service and that Udenna failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut it.
DJY v DJZ: Injunction to Restrain Performance Bond Call | Construction Dispute
In DJY v DJZ and DKA, the High Court of Singapore dismissed DJY's application for an injunction to restrain DJZ from demanding payment under an irrevocable standby letter of credit (SBLC) related to a contract for the construction of an offshore semi-submersible production platform. The court determined that the SBLC was a performance bond and that DJZ had strictly complied with the conditions for calling on it, and that DJY had not established unconscionability on the part of DJZ. The second defendant, the bank which issued the SBLC, was absent and unrepresented.
DKT v DKU: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Breach of Natural Justice
In DKT v DKU, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an application by DKT to set aside an arbitral award made in favor of DKU, alleging a breach of natural justice by the arbitral tribunal. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Kristy Tan, dismissed the application, finding no breach of the fair hearing rule. The underlying dispute arose from breaches of contract related to crack repair works.
Sang Cheol Woo v Charles Choi Spackman: Amendment of Defence, Abuse of Process & Riddick Principle
In Sang Cheol Woo v Charles Choi Spackman, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision to grant leave to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to amend their Defence. The case involves issues of whether the proceedings were still afoot, abuse of court process, the Riddick principle's applicability to non-parties and documents disclosed without a court order, and whether there was a real question to be determined by the proposed amendment application. The court found that the proceedings were still afoot, there was no abuse of process, the Riddick principle did not apply, and there was a real question to be determined.
Lim Oon Kuin v Rajah & Tann: Henderson Doctrine & Abuse of Process in Solicitor Conflict Case
Lim Oon Kuin, Lim Chee Meng, and Lim Huey Ching appealed the High Court's decision to dismiss their applications to amend HC/OS 666/2020 and HC/OS 704/2020 and to strike out the Originating Summonses against Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, their former solicitors. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, holding that the Henderson doctrine could not apply as there was no prior determination on the merits and that the amendment applications were not an abuse of process. The court directed the appellants to file pleadings setting out their claims against the respondent.
Ching Kelvin v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Imprisonment for Serious Careless Driving and Drink Driving
In Ching Kelvin v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against a four-week imprisonment sentence for serious careless driving, coupled with a fine for drink driving. The appellant, Ching Kelvin, had pleaded guilty to both charges under the Road Traffic Act. The High Court found that the threshold for imprisonment had been crossed due to the high alcohol level, the degree of careless driving, and the potential harm. However, the court found that the district judge had misdirected herself by considering the damage to the appellant's own vehicle as an aggravating factor. Consequently, the High Court reduced the imprisonment sentence to three weeks.