“What a difference a “day” makes”, so begins the High Court in Trustee of the Late Tay Choon Huat Estate v Soon Kiat Construction & Maintenance Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 212 (“SKC”). While it may surprise some readers, the word “day” is often fought over by the parties in adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act as it can have a significant impact on the adjudication proceedings.
Read MoreIn CGS v CGT [2020] SGHC 183 (“CGS v CGT”), the Singapore High Court had the occasion to interpret Rule 23.1 of the SIAC Rules 2016 on a party’s right to representation in an arbitration.
Read MoreIn Offshoreworks Global (L) Ltd v POSH Semco Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA(I) 4 (“Offshoreworks”), the Court of Appeal clarified that currently, corporate self-representation for foreign bodies corporate is not permissible in respect of matters before the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”).
Read MoreThis brief update highlights some of the points raised by the Singapore High Court in the brief grounds issued in Re KS Energy Ltd and another matter [2020] SGHC 198 (“Re KS Energy”) concerning the grant of an order for interim judicial management under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (the “IRDA”).
Read MoreThe words “signed, sealed and delivered” are commonly used in deeds. But what happens if there is no physical seal? In Lim Zhipeng v Seow Suat Thin [2020] SGCA 89 (“Lim v Seow”), the Singapore Court of Appeal considered whether a deed had been “sealed” notwithstanding that there had been no seal.
Read MoreSearch 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 MoreOne 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 MoreIn 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 MoreIn 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 MoreThe 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
![SEARCH ORDERS IN THE DIGITAL ERA: TBD (OWEN HOLLAND) LTD v SIMONS & ORS [2020] EWCA Civ 1182](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b6dba3250a54f3034533fb4/1600327614487-YFDS9GPYOUQ6HN0HQDHR/image-asset.jpeg)
