Singapore Court Judgments
Showing 10 of 9,503 judgments
STS Seatoshore Group v Wansa Commodities: Anti-Suit Injunction & Arbitration Agreement Dispute
In STS Seatoshore Group Pte Ltd v Wansa Commodities Pte Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an application by STS for a permanent anti-suit injunction restraining Wansa from pursuing legal proceedings in Guinea, alleging a breach of their arbitration agreement. Wansa sought to set aside an interim anti-suit injunction and requested an inquiry into damages. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Kristy Tan, dismissed STS's application, discharged the interim order, and declined to order an inquiry into damages, citing undue delay by STS and comity concerns. The primary legal issue revolved around the enforceability of the arbitration agreement and whether STS's delay in seeking the injunction prejudiced the proceedings in Guinea. The court dismissed STS's application and discharged the interim order.
AI MTBL SPV v MTBL Global Fund: Breach of Contract & Frustration in Investment Redemption
In AI MTBL SPV, LLC v MTBL Global Fund and China Capital Impetus Asset Management, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a case regarding the redemption of Arena's investment in the Fund. Arena claimed against the Fund under the Subscription Agreement, and against both the Fund and the Fund Manager under the Second Side Letter. The court discharged the Framework Agreement due to non-fulfilment of an implied condition and, alternatively, by reason of frustration. The court ordered the Fund to pay Arena US$16,633,540.66 and awarded interest on that sum against both the Fund and the Fund Manager.
VeriFone v Firemane: Appeal Dismissed, Summary Judgment Affirmed, Settlement Agreement Dispute
In VeriFone, Inc v Firemane Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court dismissed Firemane's appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision to grant summary judgment to VeriFone for US$5,427,539.70 plus interest. The dispute arose from Firemane's failure to make a timely payment under a Settlement Agreement. The court rejected Firemane's defenses of set-off and penalty, finding that Firemane had no real or bona fide defense against VeriFone's claim.
Public Prosecutor v Raj Kumar: Rape & Outrage of Modesty at Southbank Condominium
In Public Prosecutor v Raj Kumar s/o Bala, the High Court of Singapore convicted Raj Kumar of rape and outrage of modesty against a 17-year-old girl. The charges stemmed from an incident at Raj Kumar's apartment in February 2020, where he committed the offenses after the victim consumed alcohol. The court sentenced Raj Kumar to 13 years and four weeks' imprisonment and nine strokes of the cane.
Transpac Investments Ltd v TIH Ltd: Dispute over Bond Amount Release and Pre-Judgment Interest
In a dispute between Transpac Investments Limited (TIL) and TIH Limited (TIH) before the Singapore International Commercial Court, the court addressed outstanding issues of costs and pre-judgment interest following a prior judgment in favor of TIL. The court ordered TIH to pay TIL $790,500 for costs and disbursements, but declined to award pre-judgment interest. The claim involved a dispute over the release of a bond amount and allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties.
Durairaj Santiran v Singapore Airlines: Negligence & Employer's Duty of Care
In Durairaj Santiran v Singapore Airlines Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a negligence claim by Durairaj Santiran, a flight steward, against his employer, Singapore Airlines, for injuries sustained from a fall on 6 September 2019. Santiran alleged a breach of duty of care due to a slippery area on the aircraft floor. Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy dismissed the claim, finding no evidence of a slippery area and no breach of duty of care by Singapore Airlines. The court did not analyze causation, defenses, or quantum.
Law Ching Hung v Aw Eng Hai: Application to Set Aside Rejection of Proof of Debt
In Law Ching Hung v Aw Eng Hai, before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 16 October 2024, the applicant, Law Ching Hung, sought to set aside the liquidator's rejection of his proof of debt against Park Hotel CQ Pte. Ltd. The court, Goh Yihan J, dismissed the application, finding no connection between the application and a separate suit (HC/S 364/2022) involving Park Hotel Management Pte Ltd. The court held that the liquidator was correct in rejecting the proof of debt based on available accounting records and the statement of affairs, which did not disclose any debt owing to the applicant by Park Hotel CQ Pte. Ltd.
DFM v DFL: Jurisdictional Waiver in Interim Arbitration Relief Application
In DFM v DFL, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed whether DFM, the appellant, waived his right to challenge a provisional award obtained by DFL, the respondent, for interim relief in a Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) arbitration. The court, led by Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JCA, and Belinda Ang JCA, dismissed DFM's appeal, holding that DFM had submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal for the purpose of the interim relief application by contesting the application on its merits without raising jurisdictional objections. The court found that DFM's conduct demonstrated a waiver of his right to challenge the provisional award under s 31(2)(e) of the International Arbitration Act.
XEB v XEC: Division of Matrimonial Assets and Wife Maintenance in Divorce
In the Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore, Justice Choo Han Teck presided over the divorce case of XEB (Husband) v XEC (Wife) on 27 September 2024. The primary legal issues were the division of matrimonial assets and the determination of spousal maintenance. The court ordered a 50-50 split of the matrimonial assets, valued at $5,990,122.73, and a lump sum spousal maintenance payment of $528,000 from the Husband to the Wife. The matrimonial home was transferred to the Wife, with adjustments made for the difference in asset values and the maintenance payment.
Tay Shing Lee v Liang Ting Pang Jeffrey: Contractual Waiver and No Oral Modification
In Tay Shing Lee Eileen v Liang Ting Pang Jeffrey, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed the claimant's application for the defendant to pay $362,000.00 based on a Settlement Agreement. The court, presided over by Justice Goh Yihan, allowed the application, finding the agreement valid and enforceable. The key legal issues were waiver by election and the impact of a 'no oral modification' clause on the agreement's terms. The court determined that the claimant did not waive her right to immediate repayment, and the 'no oral modification' clause remained effective.