In 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 MoreIn Ng Chee Tian and another v Ng Chee Pong and others [2024] SGHC 226 (“NCT v NCP”), the High Court made certain interesting observations in relation to the interaction between claims in unjust enrichment vis-à-vis other conventional causes of action.
Read MoreWhile it is not so usual to encounter the JCT Standard Form of Design and Build Contract in Singapore, the England and Wales Court of Appeal decision in Providence Building Services Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 962 (“PB v HH”) shows the importance of paying attention to the phrasing of contractual provisions in context of the contractor’s right to terminate.
Read MoreIn Sullivan, Sir Cornelius Sean v Hill Capital Pte Ltd and another [2024] SGHC 198, the second respondent succeeded in striking out the whole of the action against her in HC/OA 820/2023 (“OA 820”).
Read MoreThe recent United Kingdom Supreme Court decision of Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP (formerly Simply Construct (UK) LLP) [2024] UKSC 23 (“Judgment”) is an interesting case on whether collateral warranties given to third parties are subject to statutory adjudication.
Read MoreIn the ex tempore judgment of Gunvor SA v Atlantis Commodities Trading Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 192 (“Gunvor”), the High Court reiterated the importance of ensuring proper service in winding up applications.
Read More
