In Tan Ng Kwang Nicky v Metax Eco Solutions Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 16 (“Tan v Metax”), the Singapore Court of Appeal had the occasion to explain the impact of settlement agreement on court proceedings.
Read More
In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Ang Jian Sheng Jonathan v Lyu Yan [2021] SGCA 12, the Court of Appeal made some observations (albeit obiter) on the interactions between the application of the rule in Foster v Driscoll [1929] 1 KB 470, and the framework set out in Ochroid Trading Ltd v Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) [2018] 1 SLR 363.
Read More
In the United Kingdom Supreme Court decision of Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2021] UKSC 5, the United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers are workers for the purposes of employment legislation.
Read More
In Cheung Teck Cheong Richard and others v LVND Investments Pte Ltd [2021] SGHC 28 (“Cheung v LVND”), the Singapore High Court found that there was an arbitration agreement based on the parties’ course of conduct and stayed the Court proceedings commenced by the plaintiffs.
Read More![MUNSHI MOHAMMAD FAIZ V INTERPRO CONSTRUCTION PTE LTD [2021] SGHC 26: DUAL VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR A SINGLE TORTFEASOR](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b6dba3250a54f3034533fb4/1612850585721-60HGSROXT2HATJL6UPBI/image-asset.jpeg)
The High Court recently held that multiple defendants could be vicariously liable for the negligence of a single tortfeasor. Applying the general test in Ng Huat Seng v Munib Mohammad Madni [2017] 2 SLR 1074 (“Ng Huat Seng”), a sub-contractor (“1D”) was found to be vicariously liable for the negligence of another sub-contractor’s (“3D”) employee at the worksite of the construction project (“Project”).
Read More
In the England and Wales Court of Appeal (“EWCA”) decision of Jalla & Ors v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 63 (“Jalla v Shell”), the EWCA dealt with the distinction between a cause of action for nuisance versus a cause of action for continuing nuisance.
Read More
In CBS v CBP [2021] SGCA 4 (“CBS v CBP”), the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld the Singapore High Court’s decision to set aside an arbitration award for breach of natural justice.
Read More![TIMING LTD V TAY TOH HIN [2021] SGHC 5: GARNISHING A JOINT ACCOUNT – CAN YOU PROVE IT?](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b6dba3250a54f3034533fb4/1611110289831-EWAAMNP48JP3V69RTV18/image-asset.jpeg)
The recent decision of Timing Ltd v Tay Toh Hin [2021] SGHC 5 considered whether the provisional garnishee order granted at the show cause stage for two joint accounts in Timing Ltd v Tay Toh Hin [2020] SGHC 169 should be made final. The High Court was not satisfied that this was proven on the facts because evidence showed that the account holders intended for the bank account to be beneficially owned by both.
Read More
In the recent decision of Orion-One Residential Pte Ltd v Dong Cheng Construction Pte Ltd and another appeal [2020] SGCA 121 (“OR v DC”), the Court of Appeal re-iterated that whether a payment claim can be validly served after termination of contract under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (“SOPA”) depends on the terms of the relevant contract. In doing so, the Court of Appeal also highlighted that parties should carefully consider whether there is utility in pursing adjudication for a payment claim served long after termination of the relevant contract.
Read More
The Court of Appeal in its recent decision of Denka Advantech Pte Ltd and another v Seraya Energy Pte Ltd and another and other appeals [2020] SGCA 119 (“Denka v Seraya”) dealt with the position of liquidated damages in Singapore in light of the Australian decision of Andrews and others v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (2012) 247 CLR 205 (“Andrews”) and the United Kingdom Supreme Court decision of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi [2016] AC 1172 (“Cavendish Square Holding”).
Read More