Singapore Court Judgments
Showing 10 of 9,503 judgments
Victory International v Borrelli: Receiver's Duties & Legal Profession Act Assessment
Victory International Holdings Pte Ltd appealed to the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore on 25 October 2024 against the decision in HC/OA 1214/2023, involving Cosimo Borrelli and Clifford Chance Pte Ltd. The appeal concerned whether a receiver is obliged to provide information to a chargor and whether a solicitor's bill of costs may be assessed under the Legal Profession Act. The court partially allowed the appeal, ordering CCPL to deliver its bill for assessment.
XHG v XHH: Division of Matrimonial Assets, Wife & Child Maintenance
In the Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore, Justice Choo Han Teck presided over the divorce case of XHG (Husband) v XHH (Wife). The court addressed the division of matrimonial assets and the maintenance of the Wife and their two children. The court made orders for the division of assets and determined the maintenance responsibilities of each party.
Attorney-General v Shanmugam Manohar: Disciplinary Tribunal's Duty to Investigate Touting Charges
In Attorney-General v Shanmugam Manohar, the Court of Appeal of Singapore allowed the Attorney-General's appeal, finding that the Disciplinary Tribunal failed to properly investigate touting charges against Mr. Shanmugam Manohar, an advocate and solicitor. The court set aside part of the Disciplinary Tribunal's determination and directed the Law Society of Singapore to apply for a new Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and investigate the matter. The primary legal issue concerned the statutory duty of the Disciplinary Tribunal to 'hear and investigate' a matter under the Legal Profession Act, particularly regarding the alleged practice of touting.
Re Dasin Retail Trust: Moratorium for Scheme of Arrangement under IRDA
Dasin Retail Trust Management Pte Ltd (DRTM), the trustee-manager of Dasin Retail Trust (DRT), applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 2 January 2025 for a moratorium under Section 64 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA) to facilitate a scheme of arrangement. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Kristy Tan, considered whether DRTM could apply for a moratorium in respect of liabilities incurred as trustee-manager and whether the requirements for granting a moratorium were met. The court granted the moratorium to DRTM.
Aastar Trading v Olam Global Agri: Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award & Adjournment Pending Setting Aside
In [2025] SGHC 5, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Aastar Trading Pte Ltd to enforce a Malaysian arbitral award against Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd. Olam sought an adjournment pending the outcome of its application in Malaysia to set aside the award. Kristy Tan JC granted the adjournment, finding that Olam's setting aside application was bona fide, the award's validity was not manifest, enforcement would not be hindered, the delay was not undue, and comity favored deference to the Malaysian courts. The court adjourned the Singapore enforcement proceedings, reserving costs to the hearing of the remainder of the application.
Glassberg v UBS AG: Breach of Contract, Negligence & Vicarious Liability in Investment Advice
In Glassberg, Jonathan William v UBS AG, Singapore Branch, the General Division of the High Court heard a case regarding a dispute between Jonathan Glassberg (Plaintiff) and UBS AG, Singapore Branch (Defendant) concerning a soured investment. Glassberg claimed UBS breached its contractual and tortious duties by not warning him about the high-risk nature of the investment and alleged vicarious liability for the actions of UBS's relationship manager, Mr. Stephan Freh. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Alex Wong Li Kok, dismissed Glassberg's claims, finding that Mr. Freh lacked the authority to offer the investment, UBS owed no contractual obligations under the Investment Terms & Conditions, and no tortious duty of care existed. The court also found that the exclusion clauses were reasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act and that UBS was not vicariously liable for Mr. Freh's actions.
WZF v WZG: Division of Matrimonial Assets & Child Custody Dispute
In WZF v WZG, the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) in Singapore, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Mohamed Faizal on January 9, 2025, addressed a divorce case involving disputes over child custody, division of matrimonial assets, and maintenance. The court granted joint custody to both parents, care and control to the Wife, and ordered a division of matrimonial assets with a larger share awarded to the Wife due to the Husband's non-disclosure of assets. The court also ordered the Husband to pay child maintenance but denied the Wife's request for spousal maintenance.
Public Prosecutor v Lee Heng Wong: Culpable Homicide Sentencing for Stabbing at Disco
In Public Prosecutor v Lee Heng Wong, the High Court of Singapore sentenced Lee Heng Wong to 16 years' imprisonment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The charge stemmed from an incident on 14 February 2010, where Wong, a bouncer at 'De Basement Live Disco,' stabbed Xi Wei Feng, a patron, twice in the left thigh, resulting in his death. The court, presided over by Valerie Thean J, considered aggravating factors such as premeditation and Wong's abscondment from Singapore for over 12 years after the incident. The defense argued for a lighter sentence, citing provocation and Wong's eventual surrender, but the court emphasized retribution and deterrence as primary sentencing considerations.
Marketlend v QBE Insurance: Trade Credit Insurance, Assignment, Consent, Estoppel, Admissibility of Evidence, Non-Disclosure, Risk
Marketlend Pty Ltd and Australian Executor Trustees Limited claimed against QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd in the Singapore International Commercial Court, seeking US$9,035,365.38 under a trade credit insurance policy for losses from alleged trades by Novita Trading Limited. QBE denied liability, citing Marketlend's lack of standing, breach of assignment terms, material non-disclosures, and failure to prove the existence of insured debts. The court dismissed the claims, finding that Marketlend lacked standing due to an unauthorized assignment of the policy and that the claimants failed to prove the existence of genuine insured debts.
Tan Hui Meng v Public Prosecutor: Residential Property Act & False Evidence in Judicial Proceedings
Tan Hui Meng appealed against his conviction on charges under the Residential Property Act and for providing false evidence in judicial proceedings. The Public Prosecutor cross-appealed against the sentence for providing false evidence. The High Court dismissed Tan's appeal, finding that he had wrongfully purchased restricted residential property on behalf of a foreign national and had provided false evidence in a related suit. The court allowed the Prosecution's appeal, enhancing Tan's sentence to four years, three months, and three weeks imprisonment, with a $3,000 fine.