DOCSLIB.ORG

Rankine Bernadette Adeline V Chenet Finance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rankine Bernadette Adeline V Chenet Finance Rankine Bernadette Adeline v Chenet Finance Ltd [2011] SGHC 79 Case Number : Suit No 971 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No.122 of 2010) Decision Date : 31 March 2011 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Kan Ting Chiu J Counsel Name(s) : Cavinder Bull SC and Gerui Lim (Instructed) (Drew & Napier LLC), and Dawn Tan (Eldan Law LLP) for the Plaintiff; N Sreenivasan and K Gopalan (Straits Law Practice) for the Defendant. Parties : Rankine Bernadette Adeline — Chenet Finance Ltd CIVIL PROCEDURE – summary judgment 31 March 2011 Kan Ting Chiu J: 1 In this action, the Defendant, Chenet Finance Limited, was given conditional leave to defend the claim of the Plaintiff, Rankine Bernadette Adeline. The Defendant has appealed against my order. In the meantime, final judgment has been entered after the Defendant failed to comply with the condition imposed. The claim 2 The Plaintiff was a holder of 1,000,000 shares of a company Berlian Ferries Pte Ltd (“Berlian”) in May 2004. The Plaintiff discovered that those shares in Berlian (“the shares”) had purportedly been sold by her with consideration paid to her, and that the Defendant was the purchaser of the shares. As the Plaintiff had not agreed to sell the shares to the Defendant and had not received any consideration from the Defendant, she sought from Berlian copies of any transfer of shares signed by her. Berlian in turn informed the Defendant that it (Berlian) did not have the transfer forms relating to the shares. Berlian also informed the Defendant that as the Defendant’s representatives had inspected and made copies from the secretarial files of Berlian, the Defendant should reply to the Plaintiff, but the Defendant had not supplied copies of the transfer forms to the Plaintiff. 3 When she received no satisfactory reply to her queries, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant. She asserted that the alleged transfer was a fraud and was void, that the Defendant is not the legal or beneficial owner of the shares, and claimed for the return of the shares and damages. The pleaded defence 4 The Defendant filed its defence to the Plaintiff’s claim. In the defence, the Defendant stated that it was the holder of 24,017,983 shares of Berlian including the 1,000,000 shares claimed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant pleaded that it was unable to give full particulars of the acquisition of the Plaintiff’s shares, and the best particulars that the Defendant could give was that “1,000,000 shares was acquired from the Plaintiff around 2005”. [note: 1] 5 The Defendant pleaded further that: 7. ... The Plaintiff was well aware of the transfer of her shares in Berlian to the Defendant and also signed all relevant documents including the share transfer form to transfer her shares to the Defendant. Further, the Plaintiff was at all times also aware of the corporate structure of Berlian and the fact that [the Defendant] had invested further sums of monies to increase its shareholding in Berlian over time. 8. By reason of the matters aforesaid, the Plaintiff is estopped from denying the transfer of the shares to the Defendant. Further, the Defendant’s claim to be unaware of the transfer of her shares in Berlian to [the Defendant] is frivolous, vexatious, and scandalous and/or the claim herein is an abuse of process. The unpleaded defence 6 The Defendant resisted the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment and filed an affidavit through its director and shareholder, Tan Yeang Tze Tobby (“Tan”). In this affidavit, it was alleged that: 9. As far as the Defendant is concerned, the shares were lawfully acquired in 2005 from the Plaintiff, and certainly not by fraudulent means. The Plaintiff’s shares were issued to her in 2004 at a time when the Defendant stepped into Berlian to rescue it from its severe business difficulties by injecting S$2,000,000 in cash into Berlian. This sum was converted to 2 million shares at S$1.00 per share. 1 million shares were then allocated to the Plaintiff by the Defendant as part of a re-structuring arrangement for no consideration, as the Plaintiff and the Defendant were on friendly business terms at that point in time. In 2005, the 1 million shares were transferred from the Defendant back to the Plaintiff for no consideration. Since 2005 up to the commencement of the Suit, the Defendant has never objected to or raised any of her alleged concerns as regards the transfer. [emphasis added] I refer to this defence as the “re-structuring arrangement defence”, and will comment on this later. 7 Tan also referred to the absence of the records of the transfer. He deposed that: 13. ... the Defendant unable to access to its documents which were located in Berlian’s premises. These document have been relocated to a warehouse in Tanjong Pagar Distripark, as they are allegedly part of a group of documents which are the subject of competing claims by various parties. ... In order to fully explain to the Court the circumstances behind the transfer of the shares to the Defendant, the Defendant requires access to these documents and to adduce them before the Honourable Court at trial. 8 In the Defendants’ Submissions, the same matter was brought up, that: Some time in April 2009, a series of events began, which resulted in the Defendant losing possession, custody and control of its Company Kit and other corporate secretarial documents, ... The Plaintiff’s application 9 After the statement of claim and defence were filed, the Plaintiff applied for summary judgment under O 14, Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed). The matter went on for hearing before an Assistant Registrar who dismissed the application and gave the Defendant unconditional leave to defend the action. The Plaintiff appealed against the Assistant Registrar’s decision and the appeal came before me. The appeal 10 The Plaintiff started its submission in the appeal with the law governing applications for summary judgment. This has been succinctly stated by Justice Judith Prakash in Associated Developments Pte Ltd v Loong Sie Kiong Gerald [2009] 4 SLR(R) 389 at [22]: ... that in order to obtain judgment, a plaintiff has first to show that he has a prima facie case for judgment. Once he has done that, the burden shifts to the defendant who, in order to obtain leave to defend, must establish that there is a fair or reasonable probability that he has a real or bona fide defence. 11 Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff had established that she was the owner of 1,000,000 Berlian shares by producing a copy of the share certificate. In any event, the Defendant acknowledged that the Plaintiff held 1,000,000 shares, and the Defendant claimed ownership over them. 12 For the purpose of the application under O 14, the Plaintiff had a prima facie case for judgment on her claim that she was the owner of the shares, and the shares were transferred to the Defendant without her consent or knowledge. Although the Defendant disputes the Plaintiff’s ignorance over the transfer, the Plaintiff had put forward a prima facie case for judgment in that she can get judgment if her case is accepted. It does not mean that she is entitled to judgment as of right; that is the very question to be decided at the hearing of her application, when her claim as well as the defence is examined. Admissibility of the re-structuring arrangement defence 13 Counsel for the Plaintiff questioned the Defendant’s right to rely on the re-structuring arrangement defence. The objection was taken because the arrangement was not raised as a defence to the Plaintiff’s claim, and was not even mentioned in the defence filed. 14 There have been several decisions on this question. In Lim Leong Huat v Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd [2008] 2 SLR(R) 786 (“Lim Leong Huat”), Justice Woo Bih Li addressed the issue with admirable thoroughness in his decision delivered on 25 January 2008. He took note of the Malaysian decision in Lin Securities (Pte) Ltd v Noone & Co Sdn Bhd [1989] 1 MLJ 321 (“Lin Securities”) where it was said in p 322: No doubt a defendant is bound by the four corners of his pleading at the trial of the action but he is not so bound at the O 14 proceedings. Order 14 r 4(1) provides that a defendant may show cause against an application for summary judgment by affidavit or otherwise. He is entitled to show at the hearing of the O 14 application that over and above what has been pleaded in the statement of defence he has other defences. The issue at an O 14 application is whether the defendant has a defence and not whether the statement of defence provides him with a defence. but he was not content to adopt that approach to the issue. He went on to give further thought to the matter. He explained: 22 I had some reservation about the correctness of the decision in Lin Securities for various reasons. It is one thing for a rule to say that a defendant may show cause against an application for summary judgment by affidavit or otherwise. In such a rule, a defendant need not file an affidavit to show cause if, for example, he is able to rely on the statement of claim and/or the affidavit for the plaintiff to establish that summary judgment should not be granted. The rule does not necessarily mean that a defendant may say something in his affidavit which is not pleaded in his defence.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 7. Civil Procedure
    (2008) 9 SAL Ann Rev Civil Procedure 143 7. CIVIL PROCEDURE Cavinder BULL SC MA (Oxford), LLM (Harvard); Barrister (Gray’s Inn), Attorney-at-Law (New York State); Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore). Jeffrey PINSLER SC LLB (Liverpool), LLM (Cambridge), LLD (Liverpool); Barrister (Middle Temple), Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore); Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. Appeals Leave to appeal 7.1 In Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King [2008] 2 SLR 529, the Court of Appeal held that where the High Court has refused leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court, there can be no further recourse after the High Court has adjudicated on the matter. This case was an extension of the Court of Appeal’s previous judgment in SBS Transit Ltd v Koh Swee Ann [2004] 3 SLR 365, which concerned an application for leave to appeal against the decision of a Magistrate’s Court. 7.2 Andrew Phang JA reiterated the fundamental principle that where a legal decision cannot be appealed against as of right but requires express permission from a named authority before it can be appealed against, the decision of that authority as to whether or not to grant leave to appeal is final (Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King [2008] 2 SLR 529 at [14]). It is clear from s 21(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) that the High Court is the authority with the final say as to whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Minlaw) Invited Applications for the Second Round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) Licences on 1 July 2012
    PRESS RELEASE AWARD OF THE SECOND ROUND OF QUALIFYING FOREIGN LAW PRACTICE LICENCES The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) invited applications for the second round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) licences on 1 July 2012. Twenty-three applications were received by the closing date of 31 August 2012. 2 QFLP licences will be awarded to the following four firms (listed in alphabetical order): Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Jones Day; Linklaters, and Sidley Austin. 3 The firms will have up to six months from 1 April 2013 to commence their operations as QFLPs, and their licences will be valid for an initial period of five years from the respective start dates. Background 4 The QFLP scheme was introduced in 2008 following the recommendations of the Committee to Develop the Legal Sector chaired by Justice V K Rajah. The Committee, which included senior lawyers from top local firms, assessed that local firms and local lawyers would benefit from the increased foreign presence and competition over time. 5 The QFLP licences allow Foreign Law Practices (FLPs) to practise in permitted areas of Singapore law1. The scheme seeks to support the growth of key economic sectors, grow the legal sector, as well as to offer additional 1 Permitted areas are all areas except domestic areas of litigation and general practice, for example, criminal law, retail conveyancing, family law and administrative law. The QFLPs can practise the permitted areas through Singapore-qualified lawyers with practising certificates or foreign lawyers holding the foreign practitioner certificate. 1 opportunities for our lawyers. A total of six FLPs2 were awarded QFLP licences in the first round in 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Grounds of Decision
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGHC 208 Originating Summons No 980 of 2018 Between Republic of India … Plaintiff And Vedanta Resources plc … Defendant GROUNDS OF DECISION [Arbitration] — [Confidentiality] — [Documents] [Arbitration] — [Confidentiality] — [Evidence used in other proceedings] [Arbitration] — [Interlocutory order or direction] — [Court’s power] [Arbitration] — [Arbitral tribunal] — [Competence] [Arbitration] — [Conduct of arbitration] — [Preliminary issues] [Arbitration] — [Declaratory relief] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND FACTS ................................................................................4 THE CAIRN GROUP RESTRUCTURING...............................................................4 INDIA ISSUES ASSESSMENT ORDERS.................................................................4 COMMENCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATIONS ........................................................5 THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS ISSUE PROCEDURAL ORDERS ................................6 Cairn Arbitration Procedural Order No. 10..............................................7 Vedanta Arbitration Procedural Order No. 3............................................9 Vedanta Arbitration Procedural Order No. 6..........................................10 Vedanta Arbitration Procedural Order No. 7..........................................11 THE PRELIMINARY QUESTION .............................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • SCMA Distinguished Speaker Series 2014 10 November 2014 Maxwell Chambers MAKING WAVES in ARBITRATION – the SINGAPORE EXPERIENCE Justice Steven Chong
    SCMA Distinguished Speaker Series 2014 10 November 2014 Maxwell Chambers MAKING WAVES IN ARBITRATION – THE SINGAPORE EXPERIENCE Justice Steven Chong I INTRODUCTION 1. Singapore’s rise in prominence in the international arbitration scene has been nothing short of remarkable. It was not more than 20 years ago that we were, in the frank assessment of others, a jurisdiction “naïve of the needs of international commercial arbitration” – a country that “just didn’t get it”.1 Today, however, international opinion about us could not be more different. Take a glance at the recent literature around you and this is immediately apparent. From international surveys to legal bulletins, Singapore has been completely recast as a “regional leader in Asia”,2 a “world-class trailblazer”,3 and a country now firmly finding her place “within a magic circle of global arbitration players”.4 Such admirable recognition certainly gives one a sense of how far we have come, but I believe there is really no better way to appreciate the scale of Singapore’s achievements than to look at the numbers which bear this out. 1 See the anecdotal evidence of Cavinder Bull, SC in “A Hotbed for Arbitration Talent” reported in The Business Times dated 18 May 2011 2 Queen Mary, University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration at p 2 3 Lucy Reed, Mark Mangan and Darius Chan, “Follow the Leader - The Rise of Singapore as a World- Class Arbitration Centre” accessible at <http://www.legalweek.com/legal- week/feature/2221770/follow-the-leader-emulating-singapores-success> 4 Richard Tan, “The Emergence of Singapore as a Global Arbitration Hub: Reasons for its Success” (2013) 79(4) Arbitration 436 1 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Dinner Hosted by the Judiciary for the Forum of Senior Counsel
    DINNER HOSTED BY THE JUDICIARY FOR THE FORUM OF SENIOR COUNSEL FRIDAY, 14 MAY 2010 REMARKS BY CHIEF JUSTICE CHAN SEK KEONG Ladies and Gentlemen: My colleagues and I warmly welcome you to tonight’s dinner, the second that the Judiciary is hosting for the Forum of Senior Counsel. In particular, I would welcome my predecessor as AG, Mr Tan Boon Teik who, instead of relaxing at home, has taken the trouble to join us tonight. The presence of so many Judges of the Supreme Court and Senior Counsel augurs well for this annual series of dinners evolving into a tradition that will continue to strengthen the bonds between the Bar and the Judiciary. 2. This dinner is not meant to be an occasion for long boring speeches, so I will keep my remarks short and make only three points. First, the Institute of Legal Education is in the process of developing a framework for Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in Singapore. Justice V K Rajah and his committee have been working very hard to set up a CPD programme that will be effective and meaningful to the Bar. It will be a serious programme, under which we will drag unwilling horses to the trough to drink. But we hope that the CPD programme will provide a true learning experience and not be a wasteful imposition on the Bar. It will be a great achievement if members of the Bar welcome this programme and not dismiss it as being a PR exercise. 2 3. When the CPD programme is finalised, we will need Senior Counsel and leading members of the corporate Bar to become lecturers, instructors and mentors.
    [Show full text]
  • Engaging New Media: Challenging Old Assumptions, Is Our First
    // ENGAGING NEW MEDIA / / CHALLENGING OLD ASSUMPTIONS A report by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) December 2008 // ENGAGING NEW MEDIA / / CHALLENGING OLD ASSUMPTIONS A report by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society Singapore December 2008 Published December 2008 ISSN 1793-8961 © Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanised, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the copyright holder. TABLE OF CONTENTS p 2—3 // Foreword / p 5—9 // Introduction / p 11—25 // Executive Summary / p 27—49 Chapter 1 // E-Engagement / / Trends in New Media / Why Engage Online? / Embarking on E-Engagement / E-Participation / Barriers to E-Engagement / Reasons for E-Engagement / Risk Assessment / Public Feedback / Recommendations Following Public Feedback / Conclusion p 51—78 Chapter 2 // Online Political Content / / Background / Review of Light-touch Policy / Online Election Advertising in Other Countries / Proposed Recommendations in the Consultation Paper / Public Feedback / Recommendations Following Public Feedback / Conclusion p 80—107 Chapter 3 // Protection of Minors / / Risks to Minors / How are these Risks Managed? / The Key Lies in Education / What is Being Done in Singapore / Proposed Recommendations in the Consultation Paper / Public Feedback / AIMS' Views / Recommendations Following Public Feedback
    [Show full text]
  • 7. Civil Procedure
    (2007) 8 SAL Ann Rev Civil Procedure 99 7. CIVIL PROCEDURE Cavinder BULL SC MA (Oxford), LLM (Harvard); Barrister (Gray’s Inn), Attorney-at-Law (New York State); Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore). Jeffrey PINSLER SC LLB (Liverpool), LLM (Cambridge), LLD (Liverpool); Barrister (Middle Temple), Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore); Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. Accounts 7.1 Where a party renders accounts in compliance with the terms of a judgment, it is not appropriate for the opposing party (who contests the accounting period relied upon) to make an application by summons for the purpose of determining the correct accounting period. This is a matter which must be left to the determination of the registrar at the inquiry into those accounts. Such an application was made pursuant to a consent judgment in Seiko Epson Corp v Sepoms Technology Pte Ltd [2007] 3 SLR 225. The High Court considered O 43 r 3 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) in conjunction with O 38 r 8 and concluded that an application for an interlocutory hearing by summons was misconceived (at [14]–[15]). Appeals Court’s discretion to waive security deposit 7.2 In Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party [2008] 1 SLR 757, the Court of Appeal held that the provision for security deposit stipulated in O 57 r 3(3) is mandatory and therefore cannot be waived by the court. 7.3 Waiving the provision for security deposit, even for a bankrupt, would effectively allow the applicant a right of appeal free from any need to compensate the plaintiffs if his appeal fails.
    [Show full text]
  • Ng Chee Weng V Lim Jit Ming Bryan and Another [2011] SGHC 120 Case Number : Suit No
    Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and another [2011] SGHC 120 Case Number : Suit No. 453 of 2009/F (Registrar's Appeal No.379 of 2010/D) Decision Date : 16 May 2011 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Kan Ting Chiu J Counsel Name(s) : Tan Cheng Han SC (instructed) and Vijay Kumar (Vijay & Co) for the Plaintiff; Cavinder Bull SC, Woo Shu Yan and Lin Shumin (Drew & Napier LLC) for the Defendants. Parties : Ng Chee Weng — Lim Jit Ming Bryan and another Civil Procedure – Pleadings 16 May 2011 Kan Ting Chiu J: 1 The plaintiff Ng Chee Weng applied to amend his Statement of Claim against the defendants. Some of the amendments were dismissed by an Assistant Registrar (“AR”), and the plaintiff appealed against the dismissal. I affirmed the AR’s decision and set out my grounds. Background 2 On 26 May 2009, when the plaintiff commenced the action against the defendants, he set out the basis of his claim in para 1 of the Statement of Claim: The Plaintiff was the beneficial owner of 50% of the shareholding in Sinco Technologies Pte Ltd (the “Company”) which was held in trust for the Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant up to April 2007. The Plaintiff was therefore entitled to dividend payments made whilst he was the beneficial owner of the 50% shareholding interests in the Company. 3 The Statement of Claim went on to state that the plaintiff had sold his shares in the company to the first defendant: 17. On or about late April or May 2007, the 1st Defendant approached the Plaintiff inquiring if the Plaintiff was interested in selling all his 50% shareholding in the Company to the 1st Defendant.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Committee to Develop the Singapore Legal Sector
    REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP THE SINGAPORE LEGAL SECTOR _________________________________________ FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2007 Report of the Committee to Develop the Singapore Legal Sector Table of Contents 1 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................... 1 2 LEGAL EDUCATION ............................................................................................. 2 (A) Legal Academia............................................................................................ 3 (I) Changing Legal Education Landscape......................................... 3 (II) Synergy between Academia and Industry .................................. 5 (III) Recommendations........................................................................... 5 (B) ‘A’ Level Law................................................................................................ 7 (I) Potential Benefits of Introducing ‘A’ Level Law......................... 8 (II) Costs of Implementing ‘A’ Level Law.......................................... 8 (III) Recommendation............................................................................. 9 (C) Restructuring the Present Legal Education System.............................. 9 (I) Admission Criteria for Law Schools............................................. 9 (II) Structure of the LLB Course..........................................................10 (III) Review of Content..........................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • SAL Annual Report 2001
    SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW ANNUAL REPORT Financial year 2001/2002 MISSION STATEMENT Building up the intellectual capital, capability and infrastructure of members of the Singapore Academy of Law. Promotion of esprit de corps among members of the Singapore Academy of Law. SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW ANNUAL REPORT 1 April 2001 - 31 march 2002 5Foreword 7Introduction 13 Annual Report 2001/2002 43 Highlights of the Year 47 Annual Accounts 2001/2002 55 Thanking the Fraternity Located in City Hall, the Singapore Academy of Law is a body which brings together the legal profession in Singapore. FOReWoRD SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW FOREWORD by Chief Justice Yong Pung How President, Singapore Academy of Law From a membership body in 1988 with a staff strength of less than ten, the Singapore Academy of Law has grown to become an internationally-recognised organisation serving many functions and having two subsidiary companies – the Singapore Mediation Centre and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. The year 2001/2002 was a fruitful one for the Academy and its subsidiaries. The year kicked off with an immersion programme in Information Technology Law for our members. The inaugural issue of the Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases 2000 was published, followed soon after by the publication of a book, “Developments in Singapore Law between 1996 and 2000”. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre launched its Domestic Arbitration Rules in May 2001, and together with the Singapore Mediation Centre, launched the Singapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy for resolving “.sg” domain name disputes. The Academy created a Legal Development Fund of $5 million to be spread over 5 years for the development of the profession in new areas of law and practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Cavinder Bull CV
    Cavinder Bull, SC Chief Executive Officer B.A. (Hons), Oxford University (UK, 1992) M.A. Oxford University (UK, 2001) LL.M., Harvard Law School (USA, 1996) Barrister of England & Wales (1993) Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore (1994) Attorney-at-Law of the state of New York (1996) Appointed Senior Counsel (2008) T: +65 6531 2416 F: +65 6533 3591 E: [email protected] ABOUT CAVINDER associate. In 1995, he was awarded the Lee Kuan Yew Scholarship and left for Harvard Cavinder is the Chief Executive Officer of Law School where he received an LL.M. He Drew & Napier. He has over 25 years of passed the New York Bar exams and was experience in complex litigation and admitted to practice in New York. Cavinder international arbitration. He is engaged in trial practiced as a litigation associate with Sullivan and appellate advocacy at all levels of the & Cromwell in New York until late 1997 when Singapore Courts and appears as counsel in he returned to Singapore and Drew & Napier. international arbitration in various countries. He was made a partner of Drew & Napier in He is also co-head of the Competition Law & 1998 and a Director of the firm in May 2002. Regulatory Practice. He was appointed Senior Counsel by the Cavinder has acted as counsel in both Chief Justice of Singapore in 2008, one of a commercial and investor-state cases; and has handful to have been accorded the honour experience acting for States and investors. He before the age of 40. has also sat as an arbitrator in investor-state Cavinder graduated with First Class Honours arbitrations under the auspices of ICSID, in law from Oxford University in 1992, winning NAFTA, the Permanent Court of Arbitration the Bellot Prize for Public International Law (PCA), International Court of Arbitration (ICC), from Trinity College.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of Court (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2015
    1 S 278/2015 First published in the Government Gazette, Electronic Edition, on 14th May 2015 at 5.00 pm. No. S 278 SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (CHAPTER 322) RULES OF COURT (AMENDMENT NO. 2) RULES 2015 In exercise of the powers conferred on us by section 80 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and all other powers enabling us under any written law, we, the Rules Committee, make the following Rules: Citation and commencement 1. These Rules may be cited as the Rules of Court (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2015 and come into operation on 15 May 2015. Amendment of Order 110 2. Order 110 of the Rules of Court (R 5) is amended –– (a) by deleting sub-paragraph (d) of Rule 28(2) and substituting the following sub-paragraph: “(d) state –– (i) whether the person is –– (A) an advocate and solicitor who has in force a practising certificate; (B) admitted to practise as an advocate and solicitor under section 15 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161); or (C) registered under section 36P of the Legal Profession Act; and (ii) if the person is registered under section 130N of the Legal Profession Act, that the person is so registered;”; (b) by inserting, immediately after the words “registered foreign lawyer” in Rule 32(a), the words “or by a solicitor registered under section 130N of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161)”; S 278/2015 2 (c) by deleting the words “(Cap. 161)” in Rule 32(b); (d) by inserting, immediately after the words “registered foreign lawyer” in the heading of Rule 32, the words “or by solicitor registered under section 130N of Legal Profession Act”; and (e) by inserting, immediately after the words “by a foreign lawyer” in Rule 37(5)(b), the words “, or by a solicitor registered under section 130N of the Legal Profession Act (Cap.
    [Show full text]