In this week’s blog, we take a quick look at some of the key points raised in LJH Construction & Engineering Co Pte Ltd v Chan Bee Cheng Gracie [2022] SGHC 230, where the High Court covered a variety of important issues relating to adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004.
Read MoreIn DSL Integrated Solution Pte Ltd v Triumph Electrical System Engineering Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 221 (“DSL v Triumph”), the High Court addressed “back-to-back” contracts and found that a sub-sub-contractor was justified in stopping works as the sub-contractor had committed a repudiatory breach by failing to make payment.
Read MoreThe 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 More
![IMPORTANT RECENT DECISION ON SOPA: LJH CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO PTE LTD V CHAN BEE CHENG GRACIE [2022] SGHC 230](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b6dba3250a54f3034533fb4/1664185661962-BTUPV1J32NDM6TMTIDD7/unsplash-image-HtBlQdxfG9k.jpg)
