DOCSLIB.ORG

Modes of Commencement of Proceedings Enter a Second Phase of Implementation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Modes of Commencement of Proceedings Enter a Second Phase of Implementation MICA (P) No. 064/05/2005 March — April 2006 interSINGAPOREinterSINGAPORE ACADEMYACADEMY seseOFOF LAWLAW ModesModes ofof CommencementCommencement ofof Proceedings:Proceedings: PhasePhase 22 NewNew SearchSearch ToolTool onon LegalLegal ProspectorProspector 22 Peer-to-PeerPeer-to-Peer TechnologiesTechnologies andand RelatedRelated CopyrightCopyright IssuesIssues INTER ALIA A number of projects, on both the Singapore courts and the Singapore Academy of Law (“SAL”) fronts, are entering new phases. At the level of the courts, the changes to the modes of commencement of proceedings enter a second phase of implementation. With effect from 1 April 2006, there will be only two modes of commencing legal proceedings in the courts, the writ, and the originating summons for winding up, judicial management and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as for all matrimonial proceedings. As part of this effort to streamline court processes, the relevant subsidiary legislation have also been consolidated. A summary of the changes to the court applications and the relevant subsidiary legislation is featured in this issue of Inter Se. At SAL, LawNet launches its most recent addition to the Legal Prospector 2 search engine. The “Reference Trace” research tool will allow LawNet users to accurately trace references to and annotations of primary legal sources within the Singapore Law Reports (“the SLR”). The search function is also available for all references to secondary legal sources cited in cases reported in the SLR from 2006 onwards. Additionally, the LawNet secretariat is working towards extending the search tool to cover all references to and annotations of primary and secondary legal sources in reported and unreported decisions of the Supreme Court. Every effort is being taken to ensure that the legal infrastructure is as efficient and comprehensive as possible. Yet, the legal system and all its processes and machinery would mean very little if we did not have great men and women administering and serving in it. The legal community lost one such leading light in February. After grief, what remains is the legacy of legal insight and robust case law delivered with fairness and wit that the late Justice Lai Kew Chai will be remembered for. Through the Honourable Justice Chao Hick Tin and the Honourable Justice Choo Han Teck, we pay tribute to the late Justice Lai Kew Chai in a fitting final farewell. Serene Wee Director/Chief Executive Officer Singapore Academy of Law Director/Chief Executive Officer: Ms Serene Wee • Editor: Anita Parkash • Editorial Committee: David Quark and Sherina Chan • Singapore Academy of Law, 1 Supreme Court Lane, Level 6, Singapore 178879, Tel: 6332 4388, Fax: 6334 4940 • Design: Chiang Weiyah • Advertising Sales: Florence Long, 9382 0381, [email protected] • Publisher: Lyon Low • fffffdddddddddctive Mediactive Pte Ltd, 65 Ubi Crescent, #06-07 Hola Centre, Singapore 408559, Tel: 6846 4168 • Printed in Singapore by KHL Printing Co Pte Ltd 01 INTER SE mar — apr 2006 19 Hot & Wired 14 Dos & To-DosTo Dos 21 Tech Law Watch 27 17 Dos & To-Dos Laws & Orders Contents March – April 2006 01 Inter Alia [Cover]: Photodisc Green Our director on recent developments 03 Here & Now Phase 2 changes to the modes of commencement of proceedings 11 Post-Its ogether with this issue of Inter Se, we Judicial appointment at the Singapore Academy of Law have 12 Fare Thee Wells & Farewells prepared a handy little membership In memoriam: The late Justice Lai T Kew Chai privileges booklet especially for our members. The SAL’s membership privileges 14 Dos & To-Dos scheme has been up and running since 2002. • Law students learn from legal practitioners • Wet and mild – the waterfront lifestyle The scheme was introduced to extend to and you members special discounts and offers from a range of dining, retail and leisure outlets 19 Hot & Wired New search tool in LawNet’s Legal Prospector 2 across the island. In 2002, there were little over 25 vendors participating in the scheme. 21 Tech Law Watch This year, members can look forward to To P2P or not to P2P – the copyright liability issues enjoying privileges at over 60 outlets and the membership privileges booklet will ensure 27 Laws & Orders Residential property, electricity and that members have all the information they mutual assistance in criminal matters need, at their fingertips. 02 INTER SE mar — apr 2006 HERE & NOW CHANGES TO MODES OF COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS: PHASE 2 By CaroLYN Woo and DAVinia FILZA AbdUL AZIZ, DepUTY Registrars, SUbordinate COUrts, and Dorcas QUEK Ern Ling, Assistant Registrar, SUpreme COUrt INTRODUCTION parent Acts were effected in the Statutes (Miscellaneous n 1 January 2006, the first phase of Amendments) (No 2) Act (“the Act”). Amendments amendments to the Rules of Court to the relevant subsidiary legislation have also been (Cap 322, R 5) and other relevant statutes, effected. These amendments are scheduled to enter O 2 providing for only two modes of commencing into force on 1 April 2006. This article highlights the legal proceedings, was implemented.1 The second key features of the amendments. phase extends the amendments to the following classes of proceedings: WINDING UP, JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT AND BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (a) bankruptcy proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20) and the Bankruptcy Rules Winding up proceedings (Cap 20, R 1); Applications for winding up of companies and (b) proceedings relating to the winding up of limited liability partnerships will be made by way companies under s 410 of the Companies Act of originating summons instead of petition. These (Cap 50) and the Companies (Winding Up) applications will continue to be heard in open Rules (Cap 50, R 1); Court according to r 5 of Companies (Winding (c) proceedings relating to judicial management Up) Rules and the Limited Liability Partnerships of companies under s 227A of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules. Act (Cap 50) and the Companies Regulations The originating summons will state the relief (Cap 50, Reg 1); sought for. The supporting facts, which are currently (d) proceedings relating to the winding up of in the petition, will be averred to in an affidavit filed limited liability partnerships under the Limited in support of the originating summons. Presently, the Liability Partnerships Act 2005 (No 5 of 2005) affidavit verifying the petition may be filed within and the Limited Liability (Winding Up) Rules four days after the petition. Under the amended 2005 (S 532/2005); and r 25 of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules and the (e) proceedings under Pt X of the Women’s Charter Limited Liability Partnerships (Winding Up) Rules, (Cap 353), the Women’s Charter (Matrimonial the supporting affidavit is to be filed together with Proceedings) Rules (Cap 353, R 4) and the Women’s the originating summons. Charter (Matrimonial Proceedings – Fees) Rules In voluntary winding up applications, the party (Cap 353, R 5) (“matrimonial proceedings”). is to be named as “applicant” in the originating summons. In all other winding up applications, The necessary amendments to each of the relevant the parties should be listed as “plaintiff” and 1 A general overview of the 2006 amendments to the Rules of Court may be found in “Changes to Modes of Commencement of Proceedings”, Inter Se, September/October 2005 at p 3. The article, as well as the relevant legislative materials, may be accessed on the Supreme Court website (http://www.supremecourt.gov.sg). 2 Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No 2) Act Commencement (No 2) Notification 2006. 03 INTER SE mar — apr 2006 HERE & NOW “defendant”. Necessary changes have been (Winding Up) Rules 2005, as well as their made to both the Companies (Winding Up) parent Acts. The table below summarises the Rules 2005 and the Limited Liability Partnerships amendments: Type of changes Existing Companies Amended Companies (Winding Up) Rules (Winding Up) Rules Mode of commencement Originating petition (“petition”) Originating summons (“OS”) and affidavit verifying petition with supporting affidavit Form to be Application by Form 2 (petition) and Form 2 (OS) and Form 5 used company Form 7 (affidavit) (affidavit) Application by Form 3 (petition by unpaid Form 3 (OS) and Form 5 other person creditor on simple contract) (affidavit) and Form 7 (affidavit) When to file supporting Within 4 days after petition To be filed together with OS affidavit is presented Names of Application by Petitioner Applicant parties on company originating process Application by Petitioner and respondent Plaintiff and defendant other person Validity of originating process No validity period 6 months (for purpose of service) Table 1: Amendments to winding up proceedings. Annex A shows a sample of Form 2 of the Court. An application has to be made to renew the amended Companies (Winding Up) Rules. This is originating summons in the event that it is not served an originating summons by a person other than within six months. the company. The person applying for the order is There are no amendments made to other time- listed as “plaintiff” and the company is referred to lines such as the requirement of advertising the as “defendant”. The hearing date will be annotated winding up application seven clear days before directly in the originating summons instead of being the hearing. annotated at the top portion of the originating summons, below the case number. A note has been Judicial management proceedings inserted at the end of the originating summons, The amendments to these proceedings are largely stating that the originating summons is to be served similar to the changes to winding up proceedings. together with the supporting affidavit. A second Rule 30 of the Companies Regulations (Judicial note in the form alludes to the new r 17A of the Management) has been amended to provide that Companies (Winding Up) Rules and the Limited an application for a judicial management order is Liability Partnerships (Winding Up) Rules, which to be made by originating summons (Form 63A).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 4 Comparative Law and Constitutional Interpretation in Singapore: Insights from Constitutional Theory 114 ARUN K THIRUVENGADAM
    Evolution of a Revolution Between 1965 and 2005, changes to Singapore’s Constitution were so tremendous as to amount to a revolution. These developments are comprehensively discussed and critically examined for the first time in this edited volume. With its momentous secession from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, Singapore had the perfect opportunity to craft a popularly-endorsed constitution. Instead, it retained the 1958 State Constitution and augmented it with provisions from the Malaysian Federal Constitution. The decision in favour of stability and gradual change belied the revolutionary changes to Singapore’s Constitution over the next 40 years, transforming its erstwhile Westminster-style constitution into something quite unique. The Government’s overriding concern with ensuring stability, public order, Asian values and communitarian politics, are not without their setbacks or critics. This collection strives to enrich our understanding of the historical antecedents of the current Constitution and offers a timely retrospective assessment of how history, politics and economics have shaped the Constitution. It is the first collaborative effort by a group of Singapore constitutional law scholars and will be of interest to students and academics from a range of disciplines, including comparative constitutional law, political science, government and Asian studies. Dr Li-ann Thio is Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore where she teaches public international law, constitutional law and human rights law. She is a Nominated Member of Parliament (11th Session). Dr Kevin YL Tan is Director of Equilibrium Consulting Pte Ltd and Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore where he teaches public law and media law.
    [Show full text]
  • OPENING of the LEGAL YEAR 2019 Speech by Attorney-General
    OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2019 Speech by Attorney-General, Mr Lucien Wong, S.C. Monday, 7 January 2019 Supreme Court Building, Level Basement 2, Auditorium May it please Your Honours, Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the Supreme Court, Introduction: AGC in Support of the Government, for the People 1 2018 was a fast-paced year for the Government and for the Attorney-General’s Chambers. The issues occupying the thoughts of Singapore’s leaders were complex and varied, with several key themes coming to the fore. These themes shaped our work over the past year, as we strove to be a strategic partner in support of the Government’s plans and initiatives, for the benefit of our country and its citizens. I will touch on three of these themes. 2 The first theme was our Smart Nation. This initiative aims to tap on the ongoing digital revolution in order to transform Singapore through technology. The Smart Nation vision is for Singapore to be a world-class leader in the field of digital innovation, resting on the triple pillars of a digital economy, digital government, and digital society. The Smart Nation revolution will play a critical part in ensuring our continued competitiveness on the world stage, powered by digital innovation. 1 3 Data sharing was and continues to be a critical aspect of this initiative. To this end, a new law was passed in 2018 which introduced a data sharing regime among different agencies in the Singapore Government. The Public Sector (Governance) Act 2018, which was drafted by our Chambers in support of this initiative, underpins and formalises a data sharing framework for the Singapore public sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Valedictory Reference in Honour of Justice Chao Hick Tin 27 September 2017 Address by the Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon
    VALEDICTORY REFERENCE IN HONOUR OF JUSTICE CHAO HICK TIN 27 SEPTEMBER 2017 ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SUNDARESH MENON -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon Deputy Prime Minister Teo, Minister Shanmugam, Prof Jayakumar, Mr Attorney, Mr Vijayendran, Mr Hoong, Ladies and Gentlemen, 1. Welcome to this Valedictory Reference for Justice Chao Hick Tin. The Reference is a formal sitting of the full bench of the Supreme Court to mark an event of special significance. In Singapore, it is customarily done to welcome a new Chief Justice. For many years we have not observed the tradition of having a Reference to salute a colleague leaving the Bench. Indeed, the last such Reference I can recall was the one for Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, which happened on this very day, the 27th day of September, exactly 27 years ago. In that sense, this is an unusual event and hence I thought I would begin the proceedings by saying something about why we thought it would be appropriate to convene a Reference on this occasion. The answer begins with the unique character of the man we have gathered to honour. 1 2. Much can and will be said about this in the course of the next hour or so, but I would like to narrate a story that took place a little over a year ago. It was on the occasion of the annual dinner between members of the Judiciary and the Forum of Senior Counsel. Mr Chelva Rajah SC was seated next to me and we were discussing the recently established Judicial College and its aspiration to provide, among other things, induction and continuing training for Judges.
    [Show full text]
  • SAL Annual Report 2017
    An nu al R ep or t 2017/18 ears of Sharing and Creating Value The SAL Story 03 An interview with The President 06 SAL 30th Anniversary Celebration 08 SAL Senate 10 SAL Executive Board 12 SAL Key Executives 14 Organisational Structure 15 Key Statistics 16 Setting new precedents for Singapore Law 17 Financial Statements 35 SAL ANNUAL THE 02 REPORT 2017/18 SAL STORY 03 THE SAL STORY The Singapore Academy of Law Bill was Our Vision passed in 1988. It was said to be a giant step forward; lawyers will have a forum Singapore — for sharing ideas, SAL will not only help to promote a sense of belonging amongst The Legal hub of Asia members of the legal profession, but also raise the standard of legal services in Singapore. At least 1,700 people were Our Mission expected to be members, including judges, practising lawyers, legal service officers, Driving legal excellence lecturers in the university’s law faculty and law students. through thought leadership, Modelled after the Inns of Court in London, SAL provided dining facilities world-class infrastructure in City Hall to enable the Chief Justice and judges to get together over lunches and solutions and dinners with members of the legal fraternity for closer rapport. At the first Senate meeting held on 19 January 1989, with the late CJ Wee Chong Jin as President, eight Committees were appointed to carry out the functions of SAL. None had full-time staff. It was nevertheless a promising start. The first issue of the Singapore Academy of Law Journal was published in December 1989 and in the following year, SAL organised its first major conference to discuss “Legal Services in the 1990s”.
    [Show full text]
  • Ho Kang Peng V Scintronix Corp
    Ho Kang Peng v Scintronix Corp Ltd (formerly known as TTL Holdings Ltd) [2014] SGCA 22 Case Number : Civil Appeal No 24 of 2013 Decision Date : 30 April 2014 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Sundaresh Menon CJ; Chao Hick Tin JA; V K Rajah JA Counsel Name(s) : Alvin Tan Kheng Ann (Wong Thomas & Leong) for the Appellant; Tony Yeo and Fong King Man (Drew & Napier LLC) for the Respondent. Parties : Ho Kang Peng — Scintronix Corp Ltd (formerly known as TTL Holdings Ltd) Companies – Directors – Breach of duty [LawNet Editorial Note: The decision from which this appeal arose is reported at [2013] 2 SLR 633.] 30 April 2014 Judgment reserved Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 This appeal arises from the decision of the High Court in Suit No 207 of 2009 (“the Suit”). The appellant, Ho Kang Peng (“the Appellant”), who at the relevant time was the chief executive officer (“CEO”) and a director of the respondent, TTL Holdings Limited (“the Company”), was found liable for the breach of various fiduciary duties owed to the Company. The liability arose from certain payments made by the Company to a third party which the High Court found to be unauthorised. The key issues in this appeal concern the purpose for which the payments were made, whether they were duly sanctioned by the Company, and whether the Company is precluded from claiming against the Appellant because it was allegedly equally at fault. Facts Parties to the dispute 2 The Company is a publicly listed company on the Stock Exchange of Singapore (“SGX”) and is engaged in the manufacture and supply of moulds and finished plastic components.
    [Show full text]
  • Smubrochure.Pdf
    SMU LAW SCHOOL The Singapore Government, in a major review of the domestic supply of lawyers, confirmed a shortage of lawyers in Singapore. 2007 hence marked a major milestone in the development of legal education in Singapore – the setting up of the nation’s second law school. SMU is honoured to be entrusted with this important responsibility. As Singapore’s first private university and the only university here with a city campus purpose-built to its pedagogy of small class size and interactive learning, SMU will be extending its unique approach to its School of Law. SMU’s undergraduate law programme aims to mould students into excellent lawyers who will contribute significantly to society. The objective is to produce law graduates who have contextualised legal expertise and the ability to think across disciplines and geographical borders. In terms of pedagogy, SMU’s seminar-style learning will be put to good effect to nurture students who are confident, articulate and analytically agile. CONTENTS 03 Dean’s Message 04 Investing In The Fundamentals // Rigorous and Challenging Curriculum // Holistic Pedagogy & Course Assessment // Optional Second Major // Wide Range of Double Degree Options // Beneficial Internship & Community Service // Internship Partners 09 Commitment To Excellence // Scholarships & Awards // National & International Competitions // International Exchange 12 Career Prospects // Raising The Bar 13 Visionary Campus // City Campus // Facilities 15 Strengthening Our Relevance // Centre for Dispute Resolution // International Islamic Law and Finance Centre // Pro Bono Centre // Asian Peace-building and Rule of Law Programme 18 Heeding The Best // Advisory Board Members 19 Top Notch Faculty // Deanery // Faculty 24 The Fun Stuff // Beyond The Classroom Dean’s Message The School of Law was started in 2007 after a major review of legal education in Singapore concluded that it was timely to have a second law school in Singapore.
    [Show full text]
  • The Singapore Management University School of Law Groundbreaking Event
    THE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW GROUNDBREAKING EVENT ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL STEVEN CHONG 20 JANUARY 2014 Mr Yong Pung How, Chancellor of Singapore Management University Mr Ho Kwon Ping, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Singapore Management University Professor Arnoud De Meyer, President of SMU Professor Yeo Tiong Min, Dean of SMU School of Law Distinguished guests Staff, past and present students of SMU School of Law The ground-breaking of the SMU School of Law building is a very historic occasion and I am extremely honoured to be here. As I participate in this event, I am conscious that I follow in the footsteps of the Attorneys-General before me. At every stage of its brief history, SMU School of Law has enjoyed a close affiliation with the office of the Attorney-General. AG Chan Sek Keong chaired the Third Committee on the Supply of Lawyers. This committee recommended the establishment of a second law school in Singapore. Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin, as the then AG, was on the governmental panel that reviewed the report of the Steering Committee for the establishment of the School of Law. The current Chief Justice, Mr Sundaresh Menon, and the current dean of the Singapore Institute of Legal Education, Professor Walter Woon, my two 1 immediate predecessors, were founding members of the School of Law’s Advisory Board. The Past At this landmark occasion, it is appropriate, even as we contemplate the future, to gaze into the past. Many of you here today are current students of the law school.
    [Show full text]
  • In Its Written Judgment
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGCA 44 Civil Appeal No 78 of 2019 Between Independent State of Papua New Guinea … Appellant And PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd … Respondent In the matter of Suit No 795 of 2014 Between Independent State of Papua New Guinea … Plaintiff And PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd … Defendant JUDGMENT [Contract] — [Formation] — [Certainty of terms] [Contract] — [Contractual terms] — [Implied terms] [Companies] — [Memorandum and articles of association] — [Effect] [Companies] — [Members] — [Rights] This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. Independent State of Papua New Guinea v PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd [2020] SGCA 44 Court of Appeal — Civil Appeal No 78 of 2019 Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA and Chao Hick Tin SJ 27 February 2020 30 April 2020 Judgment reserved. Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 The parties in this appeal have been engaged in a longstanding dispute over the proper corporate governance of the respondent, PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd. The respondent is a Singapore-incorporated company limited by guarantee. At the time proceedings were commenced in the High Court by way of Suit No 795 of 2014 (“Suit 795/2014”), the value of the respondent’s assets exceeded US$1.33bn. In Suit 795/2014, it was argued that pursuant to an agreement that was only partly captured in writing, the appellant holds significant rights of oversight and control over the respondent that are directly enforceable against it and irremovable without the appellant’s consent.
    [Show full text]
  • Eighteenth Annual International Maritime Law
    EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY TEAM 10 ON BEHALF OF: AGAINST: INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD FURNACE TRADING PTE LTD AND IDONCARE BERJAYA UTAMA PTY LTD CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS COUNSEL Margery Harry Declan Haiqiu Ai Godber Noble Zhu TEAM 10 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... III LIST OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................ V STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................ 1 APPLICABLE LAW ......................................................................................................................... 2 I. SINGAPOREAN LAW APPLIES TO ALL ASPECTS OF THE DISPUTE ............................................... 2 A. Singaporean law governs the procedure of the arbitration ................................................... 2 B. Singaporean law is the substantive law applying to FURNACE and INFERNO’s dispute ....... 2 C. Singaporean law is also the substantive law applying to FURNACE and IDONCARE’s dispute ................................................................................................................................... 3 ARGUMENTS ON THE INTERIM APPLICATION FOR SALE OF CARGO ......................... 4 II. A VALID AND ENFORCEABLE LIEN
    [Show full text]
  • 8. Civil Procedure
    156 SAL Annual Review (2010) 11 SAL Ann Rev 8. 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. Affidavits 8.1 In Drydocks World LLC v Tan Boy Tee [2010] SGHC 248, the High Court reiterated that as O 41 r 5(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“RoC”) (which enables an affidavit deponent to refer to statements of information or belief) only applies to interlocutory proceedings, it does not operate where the plaintiff is seeking final relief affecting the rights of the parties. Amendments 8.2 In Navigator Investment Services Ltd v Acclaim Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd [2010] 1 SLR 25 (“Navigator”), the Court of Appeal allowed an amendment to a summons that had been filed in proceedings commenced by originating summons. The amendment was to include s 6 of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) (“IAA”) as a ground for staying the originating summons. The Court of Appeal held (Navigator at [26]) that whilst the appellant had sought to amend the summons at a very late stage, the issue of whether an arbitration was governed by the IAA or the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) (“AA”) was a question of law and it was difficult to see how there could be any prejudice that could not be compensated by an appropriate costs order.
    [Show full text]