In Interactive Digital Finance Ltd and another v Credit Suisse AG and another [2023] SGHC 198, Chua Lee Ming J in the High Court had the opportunity to decide an appeal in relation to whether the Assistant Registrar had the power to order production of the documents that were referred to in the statement of claim under the Rules of Court 2021.
Read MoreAs the saying goes, fraud unravels all. But how much does fraud actually unravel in relation to adjudication proceedings under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004? This issue is addressed in the recent case of JP Nelson Equipment Pte Ltd v Builders Hub Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 186.
Read MoreIn Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 4572 v Kingsford Development Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHCR 8, AR Desmond Chong had the opportunity to consider the nature and extent of procedural breach required to render a default judgment to be “irregularly” obtained per the test for irregularity in Mercurine Pte Ltd v Canberra Development Pte Ltd [2008] 4 SLR(R) 907 (“Mercurine”). This was in the context of the claimant’s failure to attach a notice of intention to contest or not contest to the originating claim when it was served on the defendant.
Read MoreIn the recent case of CZT v CZU [2023] SGHC(I) 11, the Singapore International Commercial Court addressed whether records of deliberations by arbitrators are confidential. And the answer is generally yes, subject to limited exceptions.
Read MoreIn the recent case of Asia Grand Pte Ltd v A I Associates Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 175 (“Asia Grand”), the High Court addressed, among others, when a payment claim will be deemed to be served under s. 10 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 when the contract in question does not contain any provision on the service of a payment claim.
Read MoreHossain Rakib v Ideal Design & Build Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 166 was an appeal concerning a claim for overtime pay for over 700 hours of overtime work under the Employment Act 1968 (2020 Rev Ed) (“EA”). Goh Yihan JC allowed the appeal and found that s 38(5) of the EA was intended to protect employees, and not to prevent them from claiming overtime pay beyond 72 hours per month.
Read MoreIn The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG [2023] SGCA(I) 4, the Court of Appeal dealt with the legal basis on which the court may make orders to protect the privacy of arbitration enforcement proceedings in Singapore.
Read MoreIn Diamond Glass Enterprise Pte Ltd v Zhong Kai Construction Co Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC(A) 20, the key issue before the Court was the measure of damages for breach of a construction contract.
Read MoreParastate Labs Inc v Wang Li and others [2023] SGHC 153 concerned an application for a worldwide Mareva injunction for a quantum of US$5m. While Andre Maniam J ultimately granted a Mareva injunction for US2.5m, this only came after a conversion of the ex parte application into an inter partes application due to the claimant’s material non-disclosure.
Read MoreIn the recent Technology and Construction Court decision of Energy Works (Hull) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd & Anor (Judgment No. 2) [2023] EWHC 1142 (TCC) (“Energy Works v MW”), the issue of conditions precedent cropped up yet again in respect of a “variation claim”.
Read More
