In CBS v CBP [2021] SGCA 4 (“CBS v CBP”), the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld the Singapore High Court’s decision to set aside an arbitration award for breach of natural justice.
Read More
![TIMING LTD V TAY TOH HIN [2021] SGHC 5: GARNISHING A JOINT ACCOUNT – CAN YOU PROVE IT?](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b6dba3250a54f3034533fb4/1611110289831-EWAAMNP48JP3V69RTV18/image-asset.jpeg)
The recent decision of Timing Ltd v Tay Toh Hin [2021] SGHC 5 considered whether the provisional garnishee order granted at the show cause stage for two joint accounts in Timing Ltd v Tay Toh Hin [2020] SGHC 169 should be made final. The High Court was not satisfied that this was proven on the facts because evidence showed that the account holders intended for the bank account to be beneficially owned by both.
Read More
In the recent decision of Orion-One Residential Pte Ltd v Dong Cheng Construction Pte Ltd and another appeal [2020] SGCA 121 (“OR v DC”), the Court of Appeal re-iterated that whether a payment claim can be validly served after termination of contract under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (“SOPA”) depends on the terms of the relevant contract. In doing so, the Court of Appeal also highlighted that parties should carefully consider whether there is utility in pursing adjudication for a payment claim served long after termination of the relevant contract.
Read More
The Court of Appeal in its recent decision of Denka Advantech Pte Ltd and another v Seraya Energy Pte Ltd and another and other appeals [2020] SGCA 119 (“Denka v Seraya”) dealt with the position of liquidated damages in Singapore in light of the Australian decision of Andrews and others v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (2012) 247 CLR 205 (“Andrews”) and the United Kingdom Supreme Court decision of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi [2016] AC 1172 (“Cavendish Square Holding”).
Read More
The recent High Court decision of CIK v CIL [2020] SGHC 274 (“CIK v CIL”) is a rare instance where a claimant applied to set aside an adjudication determination rendered under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (“SOP Act”).
Read More
In the recent United Kingdom Supreme Court (“UKSC”) decision of Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd (formerly known as Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd) [2020] UKSC 48 (“Halliburton v Chubb”), the UKSC dealt with the requirement for arbitrators to not appear to be biased and the obligation of arbitrators to make disclosure, particularly in the context of accepting multiple appointments with overlapping subject matter but only one common party.
Read More
In this short blog, we take a quick look at the recent decision of Joanne Properties Ltd v Moneything Capital Ltd & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1541 (“Joanne Properties v Moneything”), where the England and Wales Court of Appeal (“EWCA”) made clear the importance of the “subject to contract” label.
Read More
The High Court decision of Silverlink Resorts Limited v MS First Capital Insurance Limited [2020] SGHC 251 (“SR v MS”) is a cautionary tale of why parties need to consider and draft their dispute resolution clauses carefully if they elect for a hybrid dispute resolution mechanism of submitting some types of disputes to arbitration and others to litigation.
Read More
The concept of consideration in contract law is one over which much ink has been spilled. In the recent Singapore Court of Appeal (“SGCA”) decision of Ma Hongjin v SCP Holdings Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 106 (“MHJ v SCP”), the 5-member SGCA dealt with the issue of whether consideration is needed insofar as the variation or modification of a pre-existing contract is concerned in an unanimous judgment delivered by Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA.
Read More
The Public Sector Standard Conditions of Contract, or commonly referred to as the PSSCOC, is no doubt a familiar standard form contract to many contractors. In this regard, one of the common questions that we have encountered is whether compliance with the rules and regulations in relation to the various COVID-19 measures would trigger Clause 14.2(e) PSSCOC entitling the Contractor to an extension of time. In other words, would any change of laws suffice to trigger Clause 14.2(e) PSSCOC, entitling a Contractor to an extension of time? In this short blog, we take a quick look at this issue.
Read More