The recent ex tempore judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in Reputation Administration Service Pte Ltd v Spamhaus Technology Ltd [2021] SGCA 51 is an important reminder that if a party intends to dispute the jurisdiction of the Singapore court over a dispute, the application to do so must be made in a timely manner.
Read MoreIn the recent decision of CDM v CDP [2021] SGCA 45, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to set out its brief views that, unlike the position in Hong Kong, there is no presumption of indemnity costs for an unsuccessful application for setting aside an arbitral award. The position in Singapore remains that awarding costs on a standard basis is the default position, unless exceptional circumstances warrant a departure and hence the imposition of costs on an indemnity basis.
Read MoreIn the Singapore High Court decision of Genuine Pte Ltd v HSBC Bank Middle East Ltd, Dubai [2021] SGHC 104, the High Court dealt with the issue of whether there was proper service of a writ of summons by the plaintiff if the defendant was working remotely and no one was physically present in the defendant’s office when the writ was served.
Read MoreIn the Singapore High Court decision of Convexity Ltd v Phoenixfin Pte Ltd and others [2021] SGHC 88 (“Convexity v Phoenixfin”), the High Court dealt with the question of whether an arbitral award should be set aside in part when the Tribunal erroneously thought that the parties had agreed to the late introduction of an issue into arbitration, and then proceeded to decide the arbitration on that issue, notwithstanding the fact that there was an objection made.
Read MoreIn the recent decision of Charles Lim Teng Siang v Hong Choon Hau [2021] SGCA 43, the Court of Appeal opined in obiter that they would maintain their preference for the approach endorsed in obiter in Comfort Management Pte Ltd v OGSP Engineering Pte Ltd [2018] 1 SLR 979 in the treatment of no oral modification clauses.
Read MoreIn Range Construction Pte Ltd v Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 34, the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s and Adjudicator’s decision in allowing the employer’s set-off for liquidated damages under the pre-2019 SOPA regime. In doing so, the Court of Appeal also examined whether the scope of the pre-amendment and current SOPA regime permitted such set-offs, which will be the focus of this blog.
Read MoreIn Frontbuild Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd v JHJ Construction Pte Ltd [2021] SGHC 72, the Singapore High Court considered what happens when a term in the construction contract purports to suspend payments upon termination of the contract, and renders the liability to pay any further sum contingent or conditional upon the operation of some other contract or agreement.
Read MoreIn Vim Engineering Pte Ltd v Deluge Fire Protection (SEA) Pte Ltd [2021] SGHC 63, the High Court held that when a construction contract stipulated that variation works shall be carried out only with written instructions from a designated person, those conditions must be met for a successful variation claim.
Read MoreIn Hwa Aik Engineering Pte Ltd v Munshi Mohammad Faiz and anor [2021] SGHC(A) 1 (“Hwa Aik v Munshi”), the newly established Appellate Division of the High Court refused to grant leave to appeal against the General Division’s recent decision on dual vicarious liability.
Read MoreIn Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 23, the Court of Appeal ordered that the appellant’s solicitor is to bear all the costs incurred in the appeal personally.
Read More
