The case of Youprint Productions Pte Ltd v Mak Sook Ling [2022] SGHC 212 concerns an appeal on a simple point of law: when a breach of contract is proven, but not its loss or damage, should the claim be dismissed, or should it be allowed with nominal damages awarded?
Read MoreThe case of PNG Sustainable Development Programe Limited v Rex Lam Paki & 5 Ors [2022] SGHC 188 (the “PNG v RL”) is an important reminder on the different nature of judgments and orders under the Rules of Court (Rev Ed 2014) (the ‘Rules”).
Read MoreIn Writers Studio Pte Ltd v Chin Kwok Yung [2022] SGHC 205, Justice Lee Seiu Kin (“Lee J”) dismissed a claim for breach of contract on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to properly plead the contract into which terms are to be implied in fact.
Read MoreIn this week’s blog, we take a quick look at Chan Tam Hoi (alias Paul Chan) v Wang Jian and other matters [2022] SGHC 192, where the Court addressed certain basic issues relating to pleading and proof of oral agreements.
Read MoreIn this week’s blog, we refresh ourselves on the legal principles for determining whether a document is a sham and whether a party can rely on an unpleaded issue of illegality with reference to the case of Siraj Ansari bin Mohamed Shariff v Juliana binte Bahadin & Anor [2022] SGHC 186 (“Siraj v Juliana”).
Read MoreIn Bharat Forge Ltd v Bombardier Aerospace Services Singapore Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 179, the High Court considered the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert, and ultimately found that the expert opinion was not of any assistance. The High Court also stated that it “was unconvinced by the pro-[plaintiff] views that [the plaintiff’s expert] put forward” (at [81]). This decision serves as a timely reminder on the expectations of an expert witness.
Read MoreIn Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd v Peel L&P Investments and Property Ltd [2022] EWHC 1842 (TCC), the England and Wales Technology and Construction Court considered, among others, an application for a declaration that certain liquidated damages provision are void and unenforceable.
Read MoreIn York International Pte Ltd v Voltas Ltd [2022] SGHC 153, the High Court held that an arbitrator was functus officio after a conditional final award had been rendered by the said arbitrator in 2014.
Read MoreIn Radha Properties Pte. Ltd. v Lim Poh Suan & 2 Ors. [2022] SGHC 139, the General Division of the High Court held that the option clause in a tenancy agreement to renew the lease of a property was not enforceable as the parties had failed to mutually agree on the “prevailing market rate” for the monthly rent for the purpose of renewing the lease.
Read MoreIn Essential Living (Greenwich) Limited v Elements (Europe) Limited [2022] EWHC 1400 (TCC), the England and Wales Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) had the opportunity to determine whether, and if so, to what extent, an adjudication decision between the parties was binding on them for the purpose of the ongoing final account process under the contract and any further adjudication. While this is an English decision, it poses some interesting questions for consideration in relation to adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004.
Read More
