News

Search orders, also commonly referred to as Anton Piller orders, are one of the most powerful, but also draconian, tools available to a party. Courts have been wary of the potential for misuse of such orders, and in the recent England and Wales Court of Appeal (“EWCA”) decision of TBD (Owen Holland) Ltd v Simons & ors [2020] EWCA Civ 1182 (“TBD v Simons”), Arnold LJ (with whom Newey LJ and David Richards LJ agreed) made some important comments on the use of search orders in the digital era.

Read More

One of the less commonly relied upon grounds for challenging an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (the “SOP Act”) is fraud. In Facade Solution Pte Ltd v Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 88 (“FS v MA”), the Court of Appeal had occasion to consider an appeal against the High Court’s decision to set aside an adjudication determination on the ground of fraud. This update highlights some of the key points raised by the Court of Appeal.

Read More

In ST Building Solutions Pte Ltd v FortyTwo Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 184 (“ST v FT”), the Plaintiff failed to prove its special damages claimed and the Singapore High Court awarded general damages at a far lower amount.

Read More

In Sandy Island Pte Ltd v Thio Keng Thay [2020] SGCA 86 (“Sandy Island v TKT”), the Court of Appeal clarified what happens if a party in the position of an owner refuses access to a party in the position of a main contractor to perform rectification works, and the owner then seeks to recover damages for defects at common law, when the contract has a defects liability clauses.

Read More

The Court of Appeal has recently delivered an important decision on the interaction between the calling of performance bonds and the adjudication regime established under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (“SOPA”) in Samsung C&T Group v Soon Li Heng Civil Engineering Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 79 (“SCT v SLH”). In summary, the Court of Appeal made clear that calls on performance bonds which have the effect of negating the decision of an adjudication determination prior to the circumstances allowed under SOPA would be unconscionable.

Read More

Would you be liable in negligence if you are given a key to inspect a house, and because you left the door open, someone else entered the house and started a fire, causing damage? Rushbond Plc v The J S Design Partnership LLP [2020] EWHC 1982 (TCC) (“Rushbond v JS Design”) deals with the above scenario, and makes clear that, in general, pure omission cases are not so easy to succeed.

Read More

This is a short update on the important decision by the United Kingdom Supreme Court (“UKSC”) in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25 (“Bresco v Lonsdale”). We will not be focusing on the facts, but more on some of the key statements made by Lord Briggs (delivering the judgment of the UKSC) in Bresco v Lonsdale.

Read More

In Sulzer Pumps Spain S.A. v Hyflux Membrane Manufacturing (S) Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 122 ("Sulzer Pumps v Hyflux"), the Singapore High Court considered what amounted to unconscionability in resisting a call on an unconditional performance bond, and in particular whether it would be unconscionable for one party in a near-liquidation scenario / undergoing restructuring to make a call on such a performance bond.

Read More

In BBA v BAZ [2020] SGCA 53 ("BBA v BAZ"), the Court of Appeal dealt with various issues raised by the Appellants seeking to set aside an arbitral tribunal's award in relation to the sale and purchase of shares in an Indian company.

Read More

The Court of Appeal in Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and another [2020] SGCA 52 (“Leiman v Noble Resources”) considered various issues, including touching on the issue of the approach to liquidated damages. This short update briefly examines some of the points raised by the Court of Appeal in this regard, given the importance of certainty in the approach to liquidated damages.

Read More