Singapore Court Judgments
Showing 10 of 9,503 judgments
PP v Dan: Culpable Homicide, Child Abuse & Evidence Disposal - Sentencing for Fatal Child Abuse
In Public Prosecutor v Dan, the High Court of Singapore sentenced Dan to 34 and a half years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane, with an additional six months' imprisonment in lieu of caning, for the culpable homicide of his five-year-old daughter, Ayeesha, as well as multiple charges of ill-treatment under the Children and Young Persons Act, including physical abuse and confinement, and for disposing of evidence under the Penal Code. The court found Dan guilty of horrific and sustained abuse, warranting a severe sentence to reflect society's abhorrence and to deter similar acts.
Royal & Sons v Hotel Calmo: Forfeiture of Lease for Breach of Covenant
Royal & Sons Organisation Pte Ltd, the Claimant, sought forfeiture of its lease with Hotel Calmo Chinatown Pte Ltd, the Defendant, in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore. The claim was based on breaches of the tenancy agreement, including unauthorized use of the premises by a third party. Kwek Mean Luck J allowed the claim for forfeiture and double rent, finding that Calmo had breached the tenancy agreement by allowing MoNo Foods to use the lobby of the premises. Calmo's counterclaim for elevator maintenance and repair costs was dismissed.
Pausi bin Jefridin v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review, Reopening Concluded Decisions & Thresholds
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard eight criminal motions (CM 22, CM 32, CM 45, CM 46, CM 47, CM 48, CM 49, and CM 50) on 1 August 2024, all seeking review of prior convictions and sentences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The applicants, including Pausi bin Jefridin, Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman, Tan Kay Yong, Ramdhan bin Lajis, Saminathan Selvaraju, Roslan bin Bakar, Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah, and Masoud Rahimi bin Merzad, argued that the disclosure of their correspondence by the Singapore Prison Service to the Attorney-General's Chambers breached prosecutorial disclosure obligations and tainted their convictions. The Court dismissed all motions, finding that the disclosed correspondence did not affect the propriety of the applicants' criminal proceedings and did not warrant an exercise of the court's power of review.
Bu Shen Xi (S) Pte. Ltd. Winding Up: Special Resolution Validity & Insolvency Under IRDA
Bu Shen Xi (S) Pte. Ltd. applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 19 July and 8 August 2024, for a winding-up order against itself, based on a special resolution under s 125(1)(a) and/or inability to pay debts under s 125(1)(e) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018. The court, presided over by Justice Goh Yihan, granted the winding-up order, finding that the special resolution was validly passed and, alternatively, that the company was unable to pay its debts as they fell due.
Pertamina v Phoenix Petroleum: Setting Aside Service of Process in SICC Arbitration Enforcement
In the Singapore International Commercial Court, Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd (PIMD) sought to enforce an arbitration award against Udenna Corporation. Udenna applied to set aside the service of the originating process. The court, presided over by Sir Henry Bernard Eder IJ, dismissed Udenna's application, holding that service was validly effected under the Hague Convention. The court found that the service was made at Udenna's usual or last known place of business and was not incompatible with Philippine law.
Marchmont Pte Ltd v Campbell Hospitality Pte Ltd: Striking Out Notice of Appeal
Marchmont Pte Ltd, the appellant, leased property to Campbell Hospitality Pte Ltd, the first defendant, with guarantees from directors Fu Yao and Wang Cuirong, the second and third defendants. Marchmont sued for possession and damages. The defendants applied to strike out Marchmont's Notice of Appeal. The Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed the application, finding the appeal was filed in time and no permission to appeal was needed. The judgment was delivered by Woo Bih Li JAD.
AP Automotive Services Pte Ltd v Liew Nyok Wah: Breach of Director's Duties & Funding Agreement Dispute
In AP Automotive Services Pte Ltd v Liew Nyok Wah, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute between AP Automotive Services Pte Ltd (the Company) and Mr. Liew Nyok Wah, one of its shareholders, along with Mr. Teo Ying Ping and Mr. Ho Siow Poh. The Company, managed by sole director Mr. Ho, claimed Mr. Liew breached an agreement to provide capital injections and acted against his fiduciary duties as a de facto or shadow director. The court found no binding agreement for capital injections, determining the funds were loans, and dismissed the Company's claim. The court awarded Mr. Liew judgment of $719,000 on his counterclaim for repayment of loans.
Ferrer Luwi Inez Ramos v Public Prosecutor: Abetting False Declarations under Employment of Foreign Manpower Act
In Ferrer Luwi Inez Ramos v Public Prosecutor, the High Court heard appeals related to the appellant's conviction for abetting false declarations under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. The appellant was found guilty of conspiring to make false declarations in work pass applications. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and allowed the prosecution's appeal, enhancing the sentence. The primary legal issue was whether the appellant abetted the making of false statements to the Controller of Work Passes.
WTS v WTR: Division of Matrimonial Assets and Maintenance Dispute
In the case of WTS v WTR, heard in the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) of Singapore, Justice Choo Han Teck addressed appeals by both the Wife and the Husband regarding the District Judge's decision on the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance. The Husband filed for divorce on 11 April 2022, and the Interim Judgment was granted on 29 June 2022. The court upheld the 79-21 split of matrimonial assets in favor of the Husband, but adjusted the Wife's maintenance to $2,000 per month for 24 months and ordered the Wife to pay a lump sum of $19,720 for the child's maintenance.
Kassimatis KC v Attorney-General: Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Counsel & Legal Profession Act Interpretation
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals by Theodoros Kassimatis KC and Edward Fitzgerald KC against a High Court decision that they could not address the court on their applications for ad hoc admission to practice as advocates and solicitors. The Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore objected to their admission. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants could not address the court on the appeals. The court considered the interpretation of the Legal Profession Act 1966.