DOCSLIB.ORG

1 of 10 As at 14 August 2015 in the SUPREME COURT of THE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 of 10 As at 14 August 2015 in the SUPREME COURT of THE as at 14 August 2015 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE SITTING OF THE COURT OF APPEAL CONFIRMED FIXTURE (AMENDMENT NO. 1) COMMENCING MONDAY, 17 AUGUST 2015 TO FRIDAY, 21 AUGUST 2015 APPEALS/APPLICATIONS FOR HEARING ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17 AUGUST 2015, MONDAY 10:00 AM 1 CORAM : SUNDARESH MENON CJ, CHAO HICK TIN JA AND ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA APPEAL NO. : CA/CA 27/2015 DECISION OF JUSTICE JUDITH PRAKASH IN S 731/2011 APPELLANT : LEOW TET SIN & ANOR (NARAYANAN VIJYA KUMAR) (VIJAY & CO.) RESPONDENT : M+W SINGAPORE PTE LTD (CHUA SUI TONG/LIM WEI LEE/TAN ZI YAN DANIEL) (WONGPARTNERSHIP LLP) SUBJECT MATTER : TRUSTS — ACCESSORY LIABILITY; TORT — INDUCEMENT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT TIME ALLOWED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: APPELLANT – 30 MINS RESPONDENT - 30 MINS 1 of 10 NOT BEFORE 2:30 PM 2 CORAM : SUNDARESH MENON CJ, CHAO HICK TIN JA AND ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA APPLICATION NO. : CA/SUM 255/2015 – CA/CA 4/2015 APPLICANT : KEA KAH KIM (KHAN NAZIM) (UNILEGAL LLC) RESPONDENT : WAN LAI TING (SIM JIN SIMM ALINA) (AXIS LAW CORPORATION) SUBJECT MATTER : CIVIL PROCEDURE — FURTHER SECURITY FOR COSTS & STAY OF PROCEEDINGS TIME ALLOWED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: UNILEGAL LLC – 30 MINS AXIS LAW CORPORATION – 30 MINS 3 CORAM : SUNDARESH MENON CJ, CHAO HICK TIN JA AND ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA APPEAL NO. : CA/CA 4/2015 DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER EDMUND LEOW IN S 320/2013 APPELLANT : WAN LAI TING (SIM JIN SIMM ALINA) (AXIS LAW CORPORATION) RESPONDENT : KEA KAH KIM (KHAN NAZIM) (UNILEGAL LLC) SUBJECT MATTER : CONTRACT — SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES TIME ALLOWED FOR THIS APPEAL IS INCLUDED IN CA/SUM 255/2015 2 of 10 4 CORAM : SUNDARESH MENON CJ, CHAO HICK TIN JA AND ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA APPEAL NO. : CA/CA 2/2015 DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER EDMUND LEOW IN S 450/2013 APPELLANT : CHOW TAT MING HENRY (ALINA SIM JIN SIMM) (AXIS LAW CORPORATION) RESPONDENT : KEA KAH KIM (NAZIM KHAN) (UNILEGAL LLC) SUBJECT MATTER : CONTRACT — SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES TIME ALLOWED FOR THIS APPEAL IS INCLUDED IN CA/SUM 255/2015 NOT BEFORE 4:00 PM 5 CORAM : SUNDARESH MENON CJ, CHAO HICK TIN JA AND ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA APPEAL NO. : CA 171/2014 DECISION OF JUSTICE WOO BIH LI IN DT 2507/2009 APPELLANT : APD (IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT : APC (LIM POH CHOO) (ALAN SHANKAR & LIM LLC) SUBJECT MATTER : FAMILY LAW TIME ALLOWED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: APPELLANT-IN-PERSON – 10 MINS ALAN SHANKAR & LIM LLC – 10 MINS 3 of 10 18 AUGUST 2015, TUESDAY 10:00 AM 6 CORAM : SUNDARESH MENON CJ, ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA AND CHAN SEK KEONG SJ APPEAL NO. : CA 94/2014 DECISION OF JUSTICE VINODH COOMARASWAMY IN S 817/2012 APPELLANT : V NITHIA THE CO-ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF PONNUSAMY SIVAPAKIAM, DECEASED (A. THAMILSELVAN) (SUBRA TT LAW LLC) RESPONDENT : BUTHMANABAN S/O VAITHILINGAM & ANOR (KANAGAVIJAYAN NADARAJAN) (KANA & CO. FOR 1st R) (RAJARAM MURALLI RAJA/LIM MIN) (STRAITS LAW PRACTICE LLC FOR 2nd R) SUBJECT MATTER : TRUSTS — RESULTING TRUSTS — CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS; EQUITY — PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL TIME ALLOWED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: SUBRA TT LAW LLC – 30 MINS KANA & CO. – 30 MINS STRAITS LAW PRACTICE LLC – 10 MINS NOT BEFORE 2:30 PM 7 CORAM : SUNDARESH MENON CJ, CHAO HICK TIN JA AND ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA APPEAL NO. : CA 164/2014 DECISION OF JUSTICE JUDITH PRAKASH IN OS 133/2014 APPELLANT : TIONG SENG CONTRACTORS (PRIVATE) LIMITED (CHIA SWEE CHYE KELVIN) (LUMEN LAW CORPORATION) RESPONDENT : POLYBUILDING (S) PTE LTD (ERIC NG YUEN) (MALKIN & MAXWELL LLP) SUBJECT MATTER : ARBITRATION — RECOURSE AGAINST AWARD — SETTING ASIDE TIME ALLOWED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: APPELLANT - 30 MINS RESPONDENT - 30 MINS 4 of 10 19 AUGUST 2015, WEDNESDAY 10:00 AM 8 CORAM : SUNDARESH MENON CJ, CHAO HICK TIN JA, ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA, TAY YONG KWANG J AND STEVEN CHONG J APPEAL NO. : CA/CA 17/2015 DECISION OF JUSTICE CHOO HAN TECK IN S 467/2012 APPELLANT : ACB (N SREENIVASAN, S.C/PALANIAPPAN SUNDARARAJ) (STRAITS LAW PRACTICE LLC) RESPONDENT : THOMSON MEDICAL PTE LTD & 3 ORS (LOK VI MING, S.C/AUDREY CHIANG/ CALVIN LIM/NERISSA TAN) (RODYK & DAVIDSON LLP) AMICUS CURIAE : ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR GOH YIHAN SUBJECT MATTER : TORT — NEGLIGENCE; DAMAGES TIME ALLOWED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: APPELLANT - 45 MINS RESPONDENT - 45 MINS NOT BEFORE 2:30 PM 9 CORAM : CHAO HICK TIN JA, ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA AND TAY YONG KWANG J APPEAL NO. : CA 176/2014 DECISION OF JUSTICE CHAN SENG ONN IN S 785/2014 APPELLANT : LION GLOBAL OFFSHORE PTE LTD (DAVID LIM HONG KAN) (LIM & BANGRAS) RESPONDENT : SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE PTE LTD (NAVIN JOSEPH LOBO/ANG KAIWEN (HONG KAIWEN)) (BIRD & BIRD ATMD LLP) SUBJECT MATTER : CIVIL PROCEDURE — SUMMARY JUDGMENT TIME ALLOWED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: APPELLANT – 20 MINS RESPONDENT – 20 MINS 5 of 10 20 AUGUST 2015, THURSDAY 10:00 AM 10 CORAM : CHAO HICK TIN JA, ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA AND TAY YONG KWANG J APPLICATION NO. : CA/OS 4/2015 APPLICANT : AWU (TAN ANAMAH NEE NAGALINGAM/WONG HUI MIN) (ANN TAN & ASSOCIATES) RESPONDENT : AWV (RANDOLPH KHOO/VERONICA MORALY JOSEPH/ TRICIA HO WEI JING) (DREW & NAPIER LLC) SUBJECT MATTER : CIVIL PROCEDURE — LEAVE TO APPEAL TIME ALLOWED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: APPLICANT- 20 MINS RESPONDENT - 20 MINS 6 of 10 NOT BEFORE 2:30 PM 11 CORAM : SUNDARESH MENON CJ, ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA AND STEVEN CHONG J APPLICATION NO. : CA/SUM 237/2015 – CA/CA 18/2015 APPLICANT : NTUC INCOME INSURANCE CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED (HRI KUMAR NAIR, S.C/SHIVANI RETNAM/ TAN SZE MEI ANGELINE) (DREW & NAPIER LLC) RESPONDENT : SIM CHAY KOON & 3 ORS (PETER CUTHBERT LOW/CHOO ZHENG XI/RAJ MANNAR) (PETER LOW LLC) SUBJECT MATTER : CIVIL PROCEDURE – FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE TIME ALLOWED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: PETER LOW LLC – 30 MINS DREW & NAPIER LLC – 30 MINS 12 CORAM : SUNDARESH MENON CJ, ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA AND STEVEN CHONG J APPEAL NO. : CA/CA 18/2015 DECISION OF JUSTICE WOO BIH LI IN S 199/2014 APPELLANT : SIM CHAY KOON & 3 ORS (PETER CUTHBERT LOW/CHOO ZHENG XI/RAJ MANNAR) (PETER LOW LLC) RESPONDENT : NTUC INCOME INSURANCE CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED (HRI KUMAR NAIR, S.C/SHIVANI RETNAM/ TAN SZE MEI ANGELINE) (DREW & NAPIER LLC) SUBJECT MATTER : ARBITRATION — STAY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS TIME ALLOWED FOR THIS APPEAL IS INCLUDED IN CA/SUM 237/2015 7 of 10 NOT BEFORE 4:00 PM 13 CORAM : CHAO HICK TIN JA, ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA AND TAY YONG KWANG J APPEAL NO. : CA/CA 29/2015 DECISION OF JUSTICE CHOO HAN TECK IN DT 2059/2011 APPELLANT : AOB (LOW CHAI CHONG/SUCHITRA A\P K RAGUPATHY) (RODYK & DAVIDSON LLP) RESPONDENT : AOC (FOO SIEW FONG/IVAN CHEONG ZHIHUI) (HARRY ELIAS PARTNERSHIP LLP) SUBJECT MATTER : FAMILY LAW TIME ALLOWED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: RODYK & DAVIDSON LLP – 20 MINS HARRY ELIAS PARTNERSHIP LLP – 20 MINS 14 CORAM : CHAO HICK TIN JA, ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA AND TAY YONG KWANG J APPEAL NO. : CA/CA 42/2015 DECISION OF JUSTICE CHOO HAN TECK IN DT 2059/2011 APPELLANT : AOC (FOO SIEW FONG/IVAN CHEONG ZHIHUI) (HARRY ELIAS PARTNERSHIP LLP) RESPONDENT : AOB (LOW CHAI CHONG/SUCHITRA A\P K RAGUPATHY) (RODYK & DAVIDSON LLP) SUBJECT MATTER : FAMILY LAW TIME ALLOWED FOR THIS APPEAL IS INCLUDED IN CA/CA 29/2015 8 of 10 21 AUGUST 2015, FRIDAY 10:00 AM 15 CORAM : SUNDARESH MENON CJ, CHAO HICK TIN JA AND ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA APPLICATION NO. : CA/CM 14/2015 APPLICANT : SUNNY NG (IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (JASMINE CHIN-SABADO) (ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S CHAMBERS (CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION)) SUBJECT MATTER : CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — EXTENSION OF TIME NOT BEFORE 11:00 AM 16 CORAM : CHAO HICK TIN JA AND ANDREW PHANG BOON LEONG JA APPLICATION NO. : CA/OS 8/2015 APPLICANT : YAP CHAI LING & ANOR (KOH TIEN HUA) (HARRY ELIAS PARTNERSHIP LLP) RESPONDENT : HOU WA YI (M.W.) (CHAI LI LI DOROTHY) (DOROTHY CHAI LAW PRACTICE) SUBJECT MATTER : CIVIL PROCEDURE — LEAVE TO APPEAL TIME ALLOWED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: APPLICANT – 15 MINS RESPONDENT – 15 MINS 9 of 10 NOT BEFORE 2:30 PM 17 CORAM : SUNDARESH MENON CJ, CHAO HICK TIN JA AND STEVEN CHONG J APPEAL NO. : CA/CA 9/2015 DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER LEE KIM SHIN IN S 634/2012 APPELLANT : SINGAPORE SWIMMING CLUB (TAN CHEE MENG, S.C/CHANG MAN PHING JENNY/ YIN JUON QIANG/AGATHA MARIE LOW) (WONGPARTNERSHIP LLP) RESPONDENT : FREDDIE KOH SIN CHONG (SEAH ZHEN WEI PAUL/KEITH TNEE/EVELYN SNG) (TAN KOK QUAN PARTNERSHIP) SUBJECT MATTER : UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS AND TRADE UNIONS — RESOLUTIONS TIME ALLOWED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: APPELLANT – 30 MINS RESPONDENT - 30 MINS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ VINCENT HOONG REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT, SINGAPORE 10 of 10 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • This Paper Has Been Published in the Journal of Business Law and The
    Supreme Court of Singapore, 1 Supreme Court Lane, Singapore 178879, t: (65)-6332-1020 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ This paper has been published in the Journal of Business Law and the Supreme Court Library Queensland gratefully acknowledges the permission of the editor, Professor Robert Merkin, to reprint it in the Yearbook. A version of this essay was delivered at the Current Legal Issues Seminar in the Banco Court on 12 September 2013. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Ms Andrea Gan and Mr Jonathan Yap, Justices’ Law Clerks, Supreme Court of Singapore, as well as to Asst Prof Goh Yihan of the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, for their helpful comments and suggestions. I would also like to dedicate this essay to all the participants who displayed an extraordinary (and, I might add, rare) degree of enthusiasm and (above all) friendship. All errors remain mine alone. Further, all views expressed in this essay are personal views only and do not reflect the views of the Supreme Court of Singapore. Andrew Phang Our Vision: Excellence in judicial education and research. Our Mission: To provide and inspire continuing judicial learning and research to enhance the competency and professionalism of judges. The Challenge of Principled Gap-Filling — A Study of Implied Terms in a Comparative Context by The Honourable Justice Andrew Phang Boon Leong* There has been a veritable wealth of literature on implied terms — ranging from doctoral theses1 to book chapters,2 articles3 and (more recently) a book.4 What accounts for this interest? Perhaps the simplest explanation is that it is an extremely important topic with at least two important functions — one substantive, the other theoretical.
    [Show full text]
  • Overseas Union Insurance Ltd V Home and Overseas Insurance Co
    Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v Home and Overseas Insurance Co Ltd and another application [2002] SGHC 83 Case Number : DC Suit 51197/1999, RA 600004/2002, OM 600011/2002 Decision Date : 23 April 2002 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Tay Yong Kwang JC Counsel Name(s) : Liew Teck Huat (Niru & Co) for the plaintiffs/respondents; P Jeya Putra (Joseph Tan Jude Benny) for the defendants/applicants Parties : Overseas Union Insurance Ltd — Home and Overseas Insurance Co Ltd Civil Procedure – Appeals – Leave – Plaintiffs seeking to appeal to High Court against district judge's decision relating to costs – District judge ruling leave to appeal necessary and refusing leave – Appeal by plaintiffs to High Court against district judge's ruling with alternative application for leave to appeal – Defendants applying to strike out appeal – Whether mode should be appeal or application for leave – Whether application for leave out of time – Whether leave to appeal necessary – Whether leave to appeal should be granted – s 21 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed) – s 50 Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1999 Ed) – O 2 r 1, O 3 r 2(5) & O 55C r 2 Rules of Court Words and Phrases – 'Amount in dispute' – s 21 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed) Between OVERSEAS UNION INSURANCE LIMITED (REG NO. 195600074R) ... Plaintiffs And HOME & OVERSEAS INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (REG NO. 513813) ... Defendants ORIGINATING MOTION NO. 600011 OF 2002 In the matter of Section 2(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) and Order 55C Rule 2 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322) And In the matter of DC Suit No.
    [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]
  • The Development of Singapore Law: a Bicentennial Retrospective1
    (2020) 32 SAcLJ 804 (Published on e-First 8 May 2020) THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGAPORE LAW: A BICENTENNIAL RETROSPECTIVE1 The present article reviews (in broad brushstrokes) the status of Singapore law during its bicentennial year. It is not only about origins but also about growth – in particular, the autochthonous or indigenous growth of the Singapore legal system (particularly since the independence of Singapore as a nation state on 9 August 1965). The analysis of this growth is divided into quantitative as well as qualitative parts. In particular, the former constitutes an empirical analysis which attempts – for the very first time − to tell the development of Singapore law through numbers, building on emerging techniques in data visualisation and empirical legal studies. Andrew PHANG Judge of Appeal, Supreme Court of Singapore. GOH Yihan Professor of Law, School of Law, Singapore Management University. Jerrold SOH Assistant Professor of Law, School of Law, Singapore Management University; Co-Founder, Lex Quanta. I. Introduction 1 The present article, which reviews (in broad brushstrokes) the status of Singapore law during its bicentennial year since the founding of Singapore by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819, is of particular significance as English law constitutes the foundation of Singapore law. The role of Raffles and his successors, therefore, could not have been more directly 1 All views expressed in the present article are personal views only and do not reflect in any way the views of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the Singapore Management University or Lex Quanta. Although this article ought, ideally, to have been published last year, the immense amount of case law that had to be analysed has led to a slight delay.
    [Show full text]
  • SOL LLM Brochure 2021 Copy
    SMU – Right in the Heart of Asia’s Hub, Singapore Masters of Laws In the dynamic, cosmopolitan hub that is Singapore, you will find a vibrant city-state that pulses with the diversity of both East and West. LL.M. in Judicial Studies Situated at the cross-roads of the world, Singapore is home to multinational companies and thousands of small and medium-sized LL.M. in Cross-border Business and Finance Law in Asia enterprises flourishing in a smart city renowned for its business excellence and connectivity. With its strong infrastructure, political Dual LL.M. in Commercial Law (Singapore & London) stability and respect for intellectual property rights, this City in a Garden offers you unique opportunities to develop as a global citizen. Thorough. Transnational. Transformative. Tapping into the energy of the city is a university with a difference — the Singapore Management University. Our six schools: the School of Accountancy, Lee Kong Chian School of Business, School of Computing and Information Systems, School of Economics, Yong Pung How School of Law, and School of Social Sciences form the country’s only city campus, perfectly sited to foster strategic links with businesses and the community. Modelled after the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, SMU generates leading-edge research with global impact and produces broad-based, creative and entrepreneurial leaders for a knowledge-based economy. Discover a multi-faceted lifestyle right here at SMU, in the heart of Singapore. The SMU Masters Advantage GLOBAL RECOGNITION SMU is globally recognised as one of the best specialised universities in Asia and the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon
    RESPONSE BY CHIEF JUSTICE SUNDARESH MENON OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2018 Monday, 8 January 2018 Mr Attorney, Mr Vijayendran, Members of the Bar, Honoured Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen: I. Introduction 1. It is my pleasure, on behalf of the Judiciary, to welcome you all to the Opening of this Legal Year. I particularly wish to thank the Honourable Chief Justice Prof Dr M Hatta Ali and Justice Takdir Rahmadi of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, the Right Honourable Tun Md Raus Sharif, Chief Justice of Malaysia, and our other guests from abroad, who have made the effort to travel here to be with us this morning. II. Felicitations 2. 2017 was a year when we consolidated the ongoing development of the Supreme Court Bench, and I shall begin my response with a brief recap of the major changes, most of which have been alluded to. 1 A. Court of Appeal 3. Justice Steven Chong was appointed as a Judge of Appeal on 1 April 2017. This was in anticipation of Justice Chao Hick Tin’s retirement on 27 September 2017, after five illustrious decades in the public service. In the same context, Justice Andrew Phang was appointed Vice-President of the Court of Appeal. While we will feel the void left by Justice Chao’s retirement, I am heartened that we have in place a strong team of judges to lead us forward; and delighted that Justice Chao will continue contributing to the work of the Supreme Court, following his appointment, a few days ago, as a Senior Judge.
    [Show full text]
  • Singapore C of a on Consideration in Variation of Contracts.Pdf
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGCA 106 Civil Appeal No 45 of 2019 Between Ma Hongjin … Appellant And SCP Holdings Pte Ltd … Respondent In the matter of HC/Suit No 765 of 2016 Between Ma Hongjin … Plaintiff And (1) SCP Holdings Pte Ltd (2) Biomax Technologies Pte Ltd … Defendants GROUNDS OF DECISION [Contract] — [Consideration] — [Necessity] [Contract] — [Consideration] — [Failure] [Contract] — [Variation] — [Consideration] [Civil Procedure] — [Pleadings] [Civil Procedure] — [No case to answer] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................4 THE DECISION BELOW ..............................................................................7 THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL.............................................9 ISSUES ............................................................................................................10 OUR DECISION ............................................................................................11 ISSUE 1: THE APPLICABLE TEST UPON A SUBMISSION OF NO CASE TO ANSWER ........................................................................................................11 ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAD ADEQUATELY PLEADED THAT THE SA WAS SUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATION ...............................................16 ISSUE 3: WHETHER CL 9.3 OF THE CLA DISPENSED WITH THE NEED FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION
    [Show full text]
  • OPENING of the LEGAL YEAR 2021 Speech by Attorney-General
    OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2021 Speech by Attorney-General, Mr Lucien Wong, S.C. 11 January 2021 May it please Your Honours, Chief Justice, Justices of the Court of Appeal, Judges of the Appellate Division, Judges and Judicial Commissioners, Introduction 1. The past year has been an extremely trying one for the country, and no less for my Chambers. It has been a real test of our fortitude, our commitment to defend and advance Singapore’s interests, and our ability to adapt to unforeseen difficulties brought about by the COVID-19 virus. I am very proud of the good work my Chambers has done over the past year, which I will share with you in the course of my speech. I also acknowledge that the past year has shown that we have some room to grow and improve. I will outline the measures we have undertaken as an institution to address issues which we faced and ensure that we meet the highest standards of excellence, fairness and integrity in the years to come. 2. My speech this morning is in three parts. First, I will talk about the critical legal support which we provided to the Government throughout the COVID-19 crisis. Second, I will discuss some initiatives we have embarked on to future-proof the organisation and to deal with the challenges which we faced this past year, including digitalisation and workforce changes. Finally, I will share my reflections about the role we play in the criminal justice system and what I consider to be our grave and solemn duty as prosecutors.
    [Show full text]
  • Visit on Dispute Resolution Services in Singapore 1
    VISIT ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES IN SINGAPORE The Secretary for Justice, Mr Rimsky Yuen, SC, visited Singapore from The Secretary for April 2 to 3 to promote Hong Kong as a legal services hub and a dispute 1 Justice, Mr Rimsky resolution centre in the Asia Pacific Region, and to enhance ties with Yuen, SC (left), Singapore’s legal sector. meets Singapore’s Senior Minister Mr Yuen met the Senior Minister of State of the Ministry of Law, Ms of State of the Indranee Rajah and the Attorney-General, Mr Steven Chong Horng Ministry of Law, Siong, SC, to discuss matters of mutual interest including the direction 1 Ms Indranee Rajah. of legal policy in both jurisdictions. Mr Yuen (left) He later visited the Maxwell Chambers, which provides alternative dispute 2 meets Singapore’s resolution (ADR) facilities and services in Singapore. Mr Yuen met Mr Attorney-General, Philip Jeyaretnam and Mr Ban Jiun Ean, respectively the Chairman and Mr Steven Chong Chief Executive of the Maxwell Chambers. He also met Mr Minn Naing Horng Siong, SC Oo, the Chief Executive Officer of the Singapore International Arbitration (right). Centre. Mr Yuen exchanged views with them on the latest development of ADR in the international context, and highlighted the Department of Justice’s objective to enhance Hong Kong’s status as a regional hub for legal and ADR services. 2 Mr Yuen also took the opportunity to meet the Dean of the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, Professor Simon Chesterman; and the Dean of the School of Law, Singapore Management University, Professor Yeo Tiong Min.
    [Show full text]
  • JUDICIARY TIMES - Issue 01
    JUDICIARY TIMES - ISSUE 01 ISSUE 01 | MAY 2018 JUDICIARY TIMES Opening of Twelve Key Initiatives The Family Justice Legal Year 2018: Announced at Courts Workplan 2018: Towards a Future- State Courts In the Next Phase Ready Legal Sector Workplan 2018 1 JUDICIARY TIMES - ISSUE 01 CONTENTS ISSUE 01 | MAY 2018 01 03 04 OPENING OF JUDGES AND TWELVE KEY LEGAL YEAR 2018: INTERNATIONAL InitiatiVES Towards A JUDGES ATTEND ANNOUNCED at FUTURE-Ready SICC 2018 State Courts LEGAL Sector WORKPLAN 2018 05 06 07 International THE Family Court AND TRIBUNAL IT DEVELOPMENTS JUSTICE Courts Administrators AND ITS IMPACT WORKPLAN 2018: attend THE ON LAW IN THE NEXT PHASE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP ProGRAMME 2 JUDICIARY TIMES - ISSUE 01 07 08 08 SMU SCHOOL Volunteer TRAINING FOR OF LAW HOSTS Mediators newly recruited LUNCH FOR attend TRAINING Volunteer SUPREME COURT ProGRAMME Support PERSONS BENCH 09 09 10 State Courts State Courts THE JUDICIARY introduces launcH GIVES Back to DOCUMENTS-Only PHASE 2 SOCIETY process FOR OF THE CJTS CIVIL CASES 11-13 14 15 15 16 NotaBLE WHAT’S AWARDS & UPCOMING BEHIND THE VISITS NEW ACCOLADES EVENTS SCENES 3 JUDICIARY TIMES - ISSUE 01 HIGHLIGHTS OPENING OF LEGAL YEAR 2018: Towards A FUTURE - Ready LEGAL Sector The Opening of the Legal Year on 8 January was Chief Justice also highlighted the challenges ahead for marked by the traditional ceremony that took place the legal fraternity and the courts, which included in the morning at the Supreme Court Auditorium, the potential disruptive force of technology and the followed by the Judiciary Dinner held at the Istana.
    [Show full text]
  • Steep Rise Ltd V Attorney-General
    Steep Rise Ltd v Attorney-General [2020] SGCA 20 Case Number : Civil Appeal No 30 of 2019 Decision Date : 24 March 2020 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Tay Yong Kwang JA; Steven Chong JA; Woo Bih Li J Counsel Name(s) : Chan Tai-Hui, Jason SC, Tan Kai Liang, Daniel Seow Wei Jin, Victor Leong Hoi Seng and Lim Min Li Amanda (Allen & Gledhill LLP) for the appellant; Kristy Tan, Kenneth Wong, Ng Kexian and Tan Ee Kuan (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent. Parties : Steep Rise Limited — Attorney-General Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Mutual legal assistance – Duty of full and frank disclosure Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Mutual legal assistance – Enforcement of foreign confiscation order – Risk of dissipation 24 March 2020 Tay Yong Kwang JA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court): Introduction 1 On 22 August 2017, a Restraint Order was made by the High Court on the application of the Attorney-General (“the AG”) pursuant to s 29 read with para 7(1) of the Third Schedule of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Cap 190A, 2001 Rev Ed) (“MACMA”), restraining any dealing with the funds in the bank account of Steep Rise Limited (“the appellant”) in the Bank of Singapore (“the BOS Account”). Subsequently, the appellant applied to the High Court to discharge the order of court. The High Court Judge (“the Judge”) dismissed the application and made no order as to costs as the AG did not seek an order for costs. 2 The appellant then appealed against the Judge’s decision.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 International Justice Forum 2019 MANAGING
    International Justice Forum 2019 MANAGING QUALITY OF JUSTICE: GLOBAL TRENDS AND BEST PRACTICES Justice Steven Chong I. Introduction 1. In the global discourse on justice and quality of justice, much has been said about the substantive aspects of the law and justice – the importance of developing sound legal principles, a consistent body of jurisprudence, and adherence to the rule of law ideal. Somewhat less has been said of the procedural aspects – the legal rules of procedure which balance due process and the efficient running of the system. But almost nothing is said of what, in my view, is a matter oft-overlooked, and yet of critical importance – court administration and management. 2. The judiciary is, of course, an organ of state, but it is also, elementally, an organisation. Like any organisation, the courts face issues of administration and management – budgeting, human resources, public communications – and failings in these respects are just as much a threat to the administration of justice as are failings in the quality of its decisions. The key to success lies not just in elocution, but in execution; and failure lurks not just in the spectacular, but in the mundane as well. 3. This pragmatic thinking is almost hardwired into the Singaporean consciousness. Our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, himself a former lawyer, put it this way: “The acid test of any legal system is not the Judge of Appeal, Supreme Court of Singapore. I wish to acknowledge the valuable assistance of my law clerk, Mr Reuben Ong, in the research of this paper. 1 greatness or grandeur of its ideal concepts, but whether in fact it is able to produce order and justice in the relationships between man and man and between man and the State.”1 Being an island-nation with no natural resources and a tiny population entirely dependent on entrepot trade and foreign investment, the development of a robust, respected and sophisticated legal system which commands the confidence of foreign traders and investors is nothing less than a matter of survival for us.
    [Show full text]