Singapore Court Judgments
Showing 10 of 9,503 judgments
Agustinus Hadi v Public Prosecutor: Dangerous Driving under Road Traffic Act
In Agustinus Hadi v Public Prosecutor, before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 16 October 2024, Agustinus Hadi appealed against his sentence for dangerous driving under s 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act. The High Court, presided over by Vincent Hoong J, dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence of seven months' imprisonment and a 36-month driving ban was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the harm and culpability factors, as well as offender-specific factors, and found no error in the District Judge's original assessment.
W. Power Group EOOD v Ming Yang Wind Power: Striking Out & Amendment in Joint Venture Dispute
In a case before the Singapore International Commercial Court, W. Power Group EOOD (WPG) sued Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co. Ltd for breach of a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) concerning wind farm projects in Bulgaria. Ming Yang sought to strike out the claim, arguing it was time-barred. WPG applied for leave to amend its statement of claim, which was opposed by Ming Yang. The court, presided over by Thomas Bathurst IJ, struck out WPG's claim and refused leave to amend, finding the claim to be an abuse of process and time-barred.
Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor: Stay of Execution & Constitutionality of Post-Appeal Applications
In Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed Sulaiman bin Jumari's criminal motion on 15 October 2024, seeking a stay of execution. Sulaiman was convicted of drug trafficking and his appeal was previously dismissed. He argued that an ongoing civil proceeding (HC/OA 972/2024) challenging the constitutionality of the Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022 warranted a stay. The Court found no reasonable prospect of success for any intended post-appeal application or review, dismissing the motion summarily.
Goh Thien Phong v UT Singapore Services: Scheme of Arrangement & Creditor Classification
The High Court of Singapore heard an application by Goh Thien Phong and Chan Kheng Tek, the liquidators of Hin Leong Trading (Pte) Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) ("HLT"), to sanction a scheme of arrangement. UT Singapore Services Pte Ltd ("UTSS") opposed the scheme, arguing that creditors could not be classified as 'potentially secured creditors.' The court sanctioned the scheme and dismissed UTSS's application to set aside the convening order. The court found that the scheme was reasonable and that UTSS's objections were without merit.
Dabbs v AAM Advisory: Wrongful Termination, Unpaid Commissions, and Illegality in Employment Contract
Matthew Edward Dabbs sued AAM Advisory Pte Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Originating Claim No 124 of 2022, alleging wrongful termination of his employment and seeking unpaid commissions. AAM Advisory counterclaimed for overpayment of bonus and commissions. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Wong Li Kok, Alex, found that AAM Advisory validly terminated Dabbs' employment due to gross misconduct and breach of confidentiality. The court dismissed Dabbs' claims and allowed AAM Advisory's counterclaim in part, ordering Dabbs to pay $85,503.69 after set-off.
SBS Holdings Inc v Anant Kumar Choudary: Security for Costs Application
In SBS Holdings, Inc v Anant Kumar Choudary and others, the General Division of the High Court heard an application by Ms. Shalini Choudary for security for costs against SBS Holdings Inc, a Japanese company, in relation to a trial concerning the beneficial ownership of shares in A2S Logistics Pte Ltd. The court dismissed the application, finding that Ms. Choudary would not face difficulty in recovering costs from SBS, given its financial standing and connections to Singapore.
The Resolution and Collection Corp v Tsuneji Kawabe: Specific Discovery Dispute
The Resolution and Collection Corporation, a Japanese company, sued Tsuneji Kawabe and others in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, seeking specific discovery of documents to trace misappropriated assets. Choo Han Teck J ordered the Specified Defendants to produce unredacted versions of previously requested documents, criticizing their redaction practices as a cynical disregard of court orders. The court ordered costs in favour of the plaintiff. The application for the remaining categories of documents was dismissed.
Loh Cheng Lee Aaron v Hodlnaut Pte Ltd: Liquidator's Authority & Digital Asset Ownership in Cryptocurrency Winding Up
In the case of *Loh Cheng Lee Aaron and another v Hodlnaut Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation)*, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore granted the liquidators' application for authorisation under s 144(1)(e) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 to commence an originating application for directions under s 145(3) of the IRDA. The directions sought pertain to determining which digital assets within the Hodlnaut Group belong to Hodlnaut Pte Ltd and which users constitute creditors of the company. The court, presided over by Judge Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah J, found that the authorisation was necessary for the proper winding up of the company.
Adri Satryawan Pratama v Public Prosecutor: Careless Driving Appeal
Adri Satryawan Pratama appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against a six-week imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Judge for careless driving causing grievous hurt to Goh Paw Leng. The High Court, presided over by Justice Vincent Hoong, dismissed the appeal, finding the original sentence appropriate given the level of harm and culpability, and upholding the disqualification and prohibition orders. The judgment was delivered on 10 October 2024.
Lee Cheng Ling v Argyle Fund Investments: Resulting & Constructive Trusts Dispute
In Lee Cheng Ling v Argyle Fund Investments Pte Ltd and Lim Chih Li, the Singapore High Court addressed an originating application concerning the beneficial ownership of a property held jointly by Lee Cheng Ling and Lim Chih Li. Argyle Fund Investments, having obtained a summary judgment against Lim Chih Li in separate proceedings, sought to seize Lim's half-share in the property. Lee Cheng Ling filed the application, seeking a declaration that she was the sole beneficial owner and to set aside the enforcement order. The court dismissed the application, finding that the Lims held equal beneficial ownership in the property.