Singapore Court Judgments
Showing 10 of 9,503 judgments
Exterian Capital v Wong Jun Jie: Contempt for Breaching Disclosure Obligations
In Exterian Capital Pte Ltd v Wong Jun Jie Adrian and Josephine Louise Richardson Limited, the High Court of Singapore found the first defendant, Adrian Wong Jun Jie, in contempt of court for breaching disclosure obligations under a Mareva Injunction and a Proprietary Injunction. The claimant, Exterian Capital Pte Ltd, alleged that Wong failed to disclose required information within the stipulated time frame and provided inadequate disclosures. The court imposed a fine of $30,000 and a suspended imprisonment term of four weeks.
MCST No 4099 v KTP Consultants: Limitation Act & Negligence in Cladding Installation
The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 4099 (MCST) appealed against the decision to strike out its claims against KTP Consultants Pte Ltd (KTP) in relation to defective cladding at the Este Villa residential development. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the MCST's claims were not time-barred under the Limitation Act, as the initial defect report did not sufficiently implicate KTP's potential negligence in structural design and supervision. The court held that the MCST's claim against KTP should proceed to trial.
XBO v XBP: Testamentary Capacity & Validity of 2012 Will Dispute
In XBO v XBP, the Family Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a dispute over the validity of two wills made by the late Mr. [A]. The plaintiff, XBO, sought a pronouncement that the 2012 Will, which bequeathed the testator's estate to him, was the last true will. The defendant, XBP, challenged the 2012 Will, claiming the testator lacked testamentary capacity due to dementia and/or Alzheimer's disease, and counterclaimed for a pronouncement that the 2011 Will, which bequeathed the property to her, was the last true will. Tan Siong Thye SJ found that the testator had testamentary capacity when making the 2012 Will and granted the plaintiff's suit, dismissing the defendant's counterclaim. The court ordered that the parties bear their own costs.
Liberty Engineering v Renault: Guarantee, Contractual Terms & French Law
In Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd v Renault SAS, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed Liberty Engineering Group's appeal against the High Court's decision. The case concerned a guarantee provided by Liberty Engineering Group (LEG) for a loan Renault made to Alvance Aluminium Wheels. The court found that Alvance had adhered to the Financial Support Agreement (FSA) under French law, making LEG liable under the guarantee for Alvance's unpaid debt to Renault. The court dismissed the appeal, albeit on different grounds relative to the decision of the Judge.
Ari Investment Ltd v Accelera: Res Judicata & Tax Issues in Debt Restructuring
Ari Investment Limited and Asian Infrastructure Limited appealed against the decision of the High Court to dismiss their claim against Accelera Precious Timber and Strategic Agriculture Limited, Dennis Kam Thai Leong, and Tan E-Lin, Eileen, based on the extended principle of res judicata. The appellants argued that they did not have sufficient information to raise certain tax issues in an earlier suit. The Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court's assessment that the appellants were aware of the tax issues and should have raised them in the first suit. The claim was related to misrepresentation and breaches of an agreement to restructure debt.
Xia Zheng v Lee King Anne: Sham Loan, Nominee Shareholding & Resulting Trust
In Xia Zheng v Lee King Anne, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute over shares in USP Group Limited. Xia Zheng sued Lee King Anne for repayment of a loan or return of shares, claiming Lee failed to repay a loan used to purchase the shares. Lee counterclaimed for compensation for acting as a nominee shareholder. The court dismissed Xia's primary claim, finding the loan agreement a sham, but declared Lee held the shares on trust for Xia. The court dismissed Lee's counterclaim in full. Li Hua was the second defendant in the counterclaim.
Navayo International AG v Ministry of Defence: Enforcement of Arbitral Award & Costs
Navayo International AG and MEHIB – Hungarian Export Credit Insurance Pte Ltd, the Plaintiffs, sought enforcement of an arbitral award against the Ministry of Defence, Government of Indonesia, the Defendant. The Defendant's applications to set aside the enforcement order and for related relief were dismissed by the Singapore International Commercial Court. This judgment addresses the determination of costs, with the court ordering the Defendant to pay $233,887.70 to the Plaintiffs.
Mohammad Azwan bin Bohari v Public Prosecutor: Stay of Execution Application
Mohammad Azwan bin Bohari applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore on October 1, 2024, for a stay of execution, arguing that ongoing proceedings in HC/OA 972/2024 could impact a future review application. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding no basis to challenge the original conviction and sentence, rendering OA 972 irrelevant to the applicant's case. The court determined that the applicant's intended review application had no prospect of success.
Public Prosecutor v S Iswaran: Sentencing for Corruption Offences under the Penal Code
In Public Prosecutor v S Iswaran, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore sentenced Mr. S Iswaran, a former Minister, on October 3, 2024, for offences under s 165 and s 204A(a) of the Penal Code. Iswaran pleaded guilty to charges including obtaining valuable things without consideration from Mr. Ong Beng Seng and Mr. Lum Kok Seng, and for obstructing the course of justice. The court sentenced Iswaran to an aggregate of 12 months' imprisonment, emphasizing the importance of public trust and integrity in governance.
WYH v WYG: Child Maintenance Variation Appeal Dismissed
In WYH v WYG, before the General Division of the High Court (Family Division), the appellant, WYH, appealed against the dismissal of his application to vary a child maintenance order. The respondent, WYG, had previously obtained a variation to increase maintenance for their three children. Choo Han Teck J dismissed the appeal, finding no change in circumstances to justify a variation of the existing order. The court emphasized that an application for variation, not an appeal, is the proper route to challenge a consent order and that the appellant's arguments were more appropriate for an appeal against the original variation order.