Singapore Court Judgments
Showing 10 of 9,503 judgments
Duke Bakery v Lin Liming: Breach of Director's Duties, Contract, Unjust Enrichment
Duke Bakery Pte Ltd sued its former director, Mr. Lin Liming, former Managing Director, Mr. Zhang Yongqiang, and former Finance Manager, Mdm. Chng Chee Hong, in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore. Duke Bakery claimed breach of director's duties, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment against Mr. Lin and Mr. Zhang, and breach of duties and misappropriation against Mdm. Chng. Mdm Chng filed a counterclaim for unjust enrichment. The court dismissed the claims against Mr. Lin and Mr. Zhang, partially dismissed the claim against Mdm. Chng, and dismissed Mdm. Chng's counterclaim.
PP v Marlene Wise: Revision of Property Disposal Order under Criminal Procedure Code
The High Court of Singapore heard a criminal revision petition by the Public Prosecutor against Marlene Wise regarding the disposal of USD42,511.55 seized during investigations. The court addressed whether it becomes functus officio after ordering property disposal under s 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code and whether it has the power to adjudicate claims under s 372. The court allowed the revision, ordering USD41,900 to be returned to Wise and USD611.55 to be forfeited to the State.
WRQ v WRP: Division of Matrimonial Assets & Consent Orders in Family Law
In WRQ v WRP, before the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore on 12 December 2024, the court considered an appeal regarding the responsibility for mortgage repayments on a matrimonial home following a consent order made in 2013. The consent order was silent on this issue, leading to a dispute between the appellant (Husband) and the respondent (Wife). The court allowed the appeal in part, ordering the Wife to bear half of the mortgage repayments from 20 July 2023, reimbursing the Husband out of her share of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.
Li Jialin v Wingcrown: Assessment of Damages, Law Society Conditions of Sale, Mitigation
Li Jialin and Li Suinan appealed against the decision of the Assistant Registrar in HC/AD 12/2023, where Wingcrown Investment Pte Ltd was awarded $95,178.31 in damages due to the Purchasers' failed attempts to purchase a property. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that Wingcrown must give credit for the $357,000 option fee, thereby reducing the damages to nil. The court addressed the applicability of the Law Society of Singapore’s Conditions of Sale 2012 and the principles of mitigation in assessing damages.
Kalachelvam v Public Prosecutor: Drug Offences & Sentencing Totality Principle
Kalachelvam s/o Packirisamy sought a reduction in his aggregate sentence of ten years and three months' imprisonment for four drug-related offences. He argued that the sentences, imposed in two separate sittings by different district judges, prejudiced him. The High Court, presided over by Justice Vincent Hoong, dismissed the application, finding no error in the district judge's decision and no grave injustice to the applicant. The court held that the applicant's aggregate sentence would not have been lower even if all offences had been dealt with in a single sitting.
Ng Cheng Tiam v Public Prosecutor: Appeals on Common Intention to Cause Grievous Hurt Sentencing
Ng Cheng Tiam, Yap Kiat Ching, Ngo Ngoc Anh, and Siaw Wee Leong appealed against their sentences for charges of common intention to cause hurt which caused grievous hurt. The High Court, applying the approach laid down in *Ang Boon Han v Public Prosecutor*, allowed the appeals and reduced the sentences. The court found the original sentencing framework used by the District Judge inappropriate and substituted it with the approach outlined in *Ang Boon Han*.
Maag v Modi: Defamation & Malicious Falsehood Claims, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Amendment of Pleadings
In Maag v Modi [2024] SGHC 311, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Lalit Kumar Modi against the decision to allow Daniel and Gurpreet Gill Maag to amend their statement of claim in a defamation and malicious falsehood action. The Maags' claim arose from social media posts by Modi. The court, presided over by Dedar Singh Gill J, allowed the appeal in part, disallowing some amendments related to publications and damages outside of Singapore, while permitting others related to publications within Singapore.
XGA v XGB: Division of Matrimonial Assets and Maintenance in Divorce
In the divorce case of XGA v XGB, the Family Division of the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, addressed the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the wife and two children. The court determined the division ratio of matrimonial assets to be 57.5-42.5 in the Wife’s favor and ordered the Husband to pay monthly maintenance of $2,000 for the Wife for two years and $6,400 monthly for the children until they turn 21.
Arbiters Inc Law Corp v Arokiasamy Steven Joseph: Legal Costs, Contentious Business Agreements, and Overcharging
The Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Arbiters Inc Law Corporation against Mr. Arokiasamy Steven Joseph and Mdm Tan Kin Tee regarding legal costs. The law firm sought to enforce contentious business agreements to compel payment of legal fees. The court allowed the appeal in part, ordering an uplift of $27,000 for professional fees and disbursements, but concurred that the letters of engagement were unenforceable as contentious business agreements because the claimed legal fees were plainly excessive. The court also ordered Mr. Steven to pay the full invoiced fees of Professor Eleni in pounds sterling. The court expressed grave concerns regarding the conduct of Mr. Rai and referred the matter to the Law Society of Singapore.
Tay Lak Khoon v Tan Wei Cheong: Judicial Management, Discounting Creditors' Votes, Removal of Judicial Managers
In Tay Lak Khoon v Tan Wei Cheong, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Tay Lak Khoon, a creditor of USP Group Limited, challenging the actions of the judicial managers, Tan Wei Cheong and Lim Loo Khoon, in counting votes at a creditors’ meeting. The application sought to disregard votes from USP subsidiaries and Hinterland Group Pte Ltd, declare Resolution 1 invalid, and remove the judicial managers. The court allowed prayers 1 and 2 of the application and dismissed prayers 3, 4, and 5 of the application.