In the recent High Court case of CROWN Construction Pte Ltd v UNIVEL Hospitality Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 64 (the “Judgment”), Lee Seiu Kin SJ found that a contract between the parties was uncertain on a crucial term, which caused to contract to be “unenforceable” due to want of certainty. Given that the agreement was for the supply of furniture, which seems relatively straightforward, how did this arise?
Read MoreThe England and Wales High Court ruled in Destin Trading Inc v Saipem SA [2025] EWHC 668 (Ch) (“Judgment”) that the exclusive jurisdiction clause in a settlement agreement superseded the arbitration agreements that was previously entered into between the parties. As a result, the Court rejected the request to stay court proceedings under section 9 Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis that the claims in question fell within the scope of the exclusive jurisdiction clause.
Read MoreWhat happens if a party seeks the “cost of cure” as damages for loss suffered due to defective works, but the party does not intend to rectify the defects? Does this mean that no damages should be awarded? This issue has recently been re-considered and addressed in the Appellate Division case of Terrenus Energy SL2 Pte Ltd v Attika Interior + MEP Pte Ltd and another appeal [2025] SGHC(A) 4 (the “Judgment”).
Read MoreThe Appellate Division in Ee Hup Construction Pte Ltd v China Jingye Engineering Corporation Limited (Singapore Branch) & Anor [2025] SGHC(A) 3 (the “Judgment”) rendered an interesting decision that, among others, dealt with the effect of withdrawing backcharges from an adjudication and its effect on a subsequent call on a performance bond.
Read MoreIn Shipworks Engineering Pte Ltd and another v Sembcorp Marine Integrated Yard Pte Ltd and another and other suits [2024] SGHC 325, the High Court dealt with a claim for provision of work and services. In the course of the judgment, there are some interesting points to note regarding the nature of contractual discretion and claims for labour.
Read MoreIn Li Jialin and another v Wingcrown Investment Pte Ltd [2024] SGCA 48 (“Judgment”), the Court of Appeal addressed whether a respondent property developer was entitled to forfeit a part of the deposit that was paid by the appellants upon the non-completion of a contract for the sale and purchase of an apartment.
Read MoreThe applicant made an application to contest the rejection of his Proof of Debt (“POD”) by a joint and several liquidator of Park Hotel CQ Pte Ltd (in liquidation) (“PHCQ”) and requested that the Court stay this application until another case (“Suit 364”) was resolved (at [1]), on the basis that the findings in Suit 364 may affect his right to claim against PHCQ (at [2]).
Read MoreIn Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 4099 v KTP Consultants Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC(A) 32 (“MCST4099”), the Appellate Division allowed the management corporation’s (“MCST”) appeal against the High Court’s decision to strike out the MCST’s claim against the structural engineer and Qualified Person (Civil & Structural Works) (“KTP”) on the basis of time bar.
Read MoreIn the short ex tempore decision of Builders Hub Pte Ltd v JP Nelson Equipment Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC(A) 28 (the “Judgment”), the Appellate Division of the High Court clarified whether an adjudication determination can be set aside for fraud if the fraud did not affect the adjudication determination.
Read MoreIn Alliance Divine Impex Pte Ltd v Arulappan Tony (DBS Bank Ltd, non-party) [2024] SGHC 227 (the “Judgment”), the applicant applied under s 175(1) of the Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) (“EA”) and/or O 11 r 11 of the Rules of Court 2021 (“ROC 2021”) for the non-party, DBS Bank Ltd (“DBS”), to produce the respondent’s bank statements and related specific documents. The High Court allowed the application pursuant to s 175(1) of the EA, but also made observations on the relationship between s 175 and O 11 r 11 of the ROC 2021.
Read More
