In Sai Wan Shipping Ltd v Landmark Line Co, Ltd [2022] SGHC 8, the High Court was confronted with a Second/Final Arbitration Award dated 27 May 2021 (the “second award”) which was made by the arbitrator without receiving any evidence or submissions from a party, excluded by reason of an earlier peremptory order made by the arbitrator. The second award was set aside for being made in breach of natural justice that prejudiced that party’s rights.
Read MoreIn Debenho Pte Ltd & Anor v Envy Global Trading Pte. Ltd. & Anor [2022] SGHC 7, the Singapore High Court had to consider whether the defendant should be permitted to stay civil proceedings brought against the defendant on the basis that, among others, the defendant also faces criminal proceedings arising out of the same facts.
Read MoreIn Gravitas International Associates Pte Ltd v Invictus Group Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 2, the Plaintiff claimed to be the assignee of all “rights, benefits, interests, claims and titles” by way of a deed, and consequently, the proper plaintiff in this suit. The High Court held that the Plaintiff did not satisfy the preliminary issue of requisite standing to bring the claims. In doing so, the High Court considered the non-assignment clause and the effect of a purported assignment contrary to the clause.
Read MoreIn TA Private Capital Security Agent Limited & another v UD Trading Group Holding Pte Ltd & another [2021] SGHCR 10, the High Court dismissed an application for a stay of proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens under Order 12 Rule 7(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) as the applicant was not confronted by any substantive claim or controversy in the action.
Read MoreIn Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and another [2021] SGHC(I) 18 (“Kiri v Senda”), the Singapore International Commercial Court dealt with whether a non-party should be held liable for costs of the proceedings.
Read MoreIn the recent England and Wales Court of Appeal (“EWCA”) decision of Rushbond Plc v The JS Design Partnership LLP [2021] EWCA Civ 1889 (“Rushbond v JS Design Appeal”), the EWCA allowed the appeal and held that it was arguable that the case was not a “pure omissions” case.
Read MoreIn Leow Peng Yam v Kang Jia Dian Aryall [2021] SGHC 275, the High Court held that knowledge within the meaning of Sections 24A(2)(b), 24(4)(b) and 24A(6)(a) of the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) must include a reasonable cognitive understanding of the information within the plaintiff’s possession. Hence, if the plaintiff did not have the sufficient cognitive function for the requisite knowledge, time would not begin to run for the purposes of the limitation period until the plaintiff had regained sufficient cognitive function.
Read MoreIn the recent England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (“EWCA”) decision of EUI Ltd v UK Vodaphone Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1771 (“EUI v Vodaphone”), the EWCA declined to grant a disclosure of information under the principle in Norwich Pharmacal v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133 against the service provider of mobile telephone services.
Read MoreIn the decision of Tan Hock Keng v Malaysian Trustees Bhd and another matter [2021] SGHC(A) 18, the Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed the appeal to set aside the registration of a consent judgment granted in Malaysia on the basis that there was no “appeal” within the meaning of Section 3(2)(e) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed) (“RECJA”).
Read MoreIn the recent decision Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd & Anor v Grafik Architects Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 2948 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court dismissed an application made to strike out the claim as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and/or because it is an abuse of process. The Court found that although there was need for further particularisation on some issues, the Particulars of Claim clearly disclosed a cause of action and reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
Read More
