Singapore Court Judgments

Showing 10 of 9,503 judgments

Mface Pte Ltd v. Chin Oi Ching: Unenforceability of Loan Agreement due to Unlicensed Moneylending

Court:General Division of the High Court
Date:15 September 2024
Case Type:Civil

In OC 71/2022, Mface Pte Ltd claimed against Chin Oi Ching for repayment of a $750,000 loan under a 2016 loan agreement. Chin's defense was that the agreement was unenforceable under the Moneylenders Act as Mface was an unlicensed moneylender. The High Court of Singapore, General Division, Kristy Tan JC presiding, dismissed Mface's claim, finding that Chin had established her defense that Mface was an unlicensed moneylender, rendering the loan agreement unenforceable.

Commercial Litigation
Outcome:Claim Dismissed

3D Infosystems v. Voon South Shiong: Assessment of Damages for Breach of Confidence & Conspiracy

Court:General Division of the High Court
Date:15 September 2024
Case Type:Civil

In 3D Infosystems Pte Ltd (formerly known as 3D Networks Singapore Pte Ltd) v Voon South Shiong and another, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore assessed damages to be paid by the first defendant, Voon South Shiong, and the second defendant, Sunway Digital Pte Ltd, to the plaintiff, 3D Infosystems Pte Ltd, for breach of contract, breach of confidence, conspiracy, and related torts. The court allowed judgment in the sum of S$445,685.57 against the first defendant solely and S$433,741.68 against the first and second defendants jointly and severally.

Assessment of DamagesBreach of ContractConspiracy+1 more
Outcome:Judgment for Plaintiff

Seatrium New Energy v HJ Shipbuilding: Contractual Terms, Warranties & Estoppel

Court:Appellate Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
Date:15 September 2024
Case Type:Civil

Seatrium New Energy Ltd (formerly known as Keppel FELS Ltd) appealed against the decision of the High Court of Singapore dismissing its claim against HJ Shipbuilding & Construction Co, Ltd (formerly known as Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co Ltd) for defective work carried out by Hanjin pursuant to a subcontract between them in relation to a vessel. The Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Seatrium's claim was precluded by the 5th paragraph of a Letter Agreement and that the warranty period had expired before the defects were discovered. The court also found that Hanjin was not estopped from denying liability and did not owe Seatrium a separate tortious duty of care.

Commercial LitigationConstruction Disputes
Outcome:Appeal Dismissed

DHZ v DHY: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Breach of Natural Justice and Jurisdictional Issues

Court:General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
Date:15 September 2024
Case Type:Arbitration

In DHZ v DHY, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an application by DHZ to set aside an arbitral award issued in favor of DHY. DHZ alleged breaches of natural justice and jurisdictional issues. The court, presided over by Justice Chua Lee Ming, dismissed DHZ's application and a related summons, finding no basis to set aside the award. The disputes in the arbitration related to four contracts for the supply of goods and services.

ArbitrationCommercial Litigation
Outcome:Originating Application and Summons dismissed.

CZT v CZU: Appeal on Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Defence Equipment Defect

Court:Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore
Date:12 September 2024
Case Type:Civil

CZT appealed against a decision by the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) dismissing its application to set aside an arbitral award in favor of CZU. The dispute arose from a contract related to the construction of defence equipment, where CZT was found liable for delivering defective material packages. CZT argued it was denied natural justice. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no unfairness in the arbitral tribunal's decision-making process.

ArbitrationCommercial Litigation
Outcome:Appeal Dismissed

Iswaran v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Case Disclosure & Prosecution's Duty

Court:Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore
Date:12 September 2024
Case Type:Criminal

In Iswaran v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed an application by S Iswaran to refer two questions of law to the Court of Appeal regarding the prosecution's obligation to disclose facts and evidence supporting the charges in the Case for the Prosecution (CFP). The court, led by Sundaresh Menon CJ, found that the questions did not raise issues of public interest, as the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) were clear and did not admit of difficulty. The court also rejected the argument that it should exercise its inherent powers to compel broader disclosure, as this would effectively override Parliament's intent.

Criminal LawAppeals
Outcome:Application Dismissed

Yap Shiaw Wei v RHB Bank Bhd: Bankruptcy Application & Interim Order for Voluntary Arrangement

Court:General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
Date:9 September 2024
Case Type:Insolvency

In the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Judicial Commissioner Mohamed Faizal dismissed an appeal by Yap Shiaw Wei against the Assistant Registrar's decision to dismiss her application for an interim order under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018. Yap sought the order to facilitate a proposed voluntary arrangement with her creditors, including RHB Bank Bhd and CIMB Bank Bhd, who had commenced bankruptcy proceedings against her. The court found Yap's proposal neither serious nor viable, citing a lack of specifics and unrealistic prospects of creditor approval. The appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the petitioning creditors.

InsolvencyBankruptcy LawRestructuring
Outcome:Appeal dismissed.

Kow Kim Song v Kow Kim Siang: Application for Sale of Property Under Supreme Court of Judicature Act

Court:General Division of the High Court
Date:8 September 2024
Case Type:Civil

Kow Kim Song and Kow Meow Chuan applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for an order to sell a property and divide the proceeds with their brother, Kow Kim Siang, under s 18(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. The property was inherited from their late mother. Justice Goh Yihan dismissed the application on 8 August 2024, citing insufficient particularization and prematurity, as the parties were still engaged in good faith discussions. The court emphasized that this procedure should not be used to cut short amicable resolutions.

Real Estate LawLitigation
Outcome:Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Pritam Singh v Public Prosecutor: Transfer of Case Application under Criminal Procedure Code

Court:General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
Date:8 September 2024
Case Type:Criminal

Pritam Singh, a Member of Parliament and Leader of the Opposition, applied to the General Division of the High Court to transfer his case from the State Courts, where he faces charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act for allegedly providing false answers to the Committee of Privileges. The application, based on Section 239(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, argued that the transfer was 'expedient for the ends of justice'. The Public Prosecutor objected. Hoo Sheau Peng J dismissed the application, finding that the transfer was not justified and that the case should remain in the State Courts.

Criminal Law
Outcome:Application dismissed

Lim Yew Beng v Lim Kwong Fei: Transfer of Proceedings to High Court

Court:General Division of the High Court
Date:5 September 2024
Case Type:Civil

In Lim Yew Beng v Lim Kwong Fei and Sompo Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Lim Yew Beng against the decision to dismiss his application to transfer proceedings from the District Court to the High Court. The claim arose from a motor vehicle accident where Lim Yew Beng sustained injuries. The court allowed the appeal, finding sufficient reason to transfer the proceedings due to the likelihood of damages exceeding the District Court's jurisdictional limit.

General LitigationPersonal Injury
Outcome:Appeal Allowed