In the Singapore High Court decision of Convexity Ltd v Phoenixfin Pte Ltd and others [2021] SGHC 88 (“Convexity v Phoenixfin”), the High Court dealt with the question of whether an arbitral award should be set aside in part when the Tribunal erroneously thought that the parties had agreed to the late introduction of an issue into arbitration, and then proceeded to decide the arbitration on that issue, notwithstanding the fact that there was an objection made.
Read MoreIn the recent decision of Charles Lim Teng Siang v Hong Choon Hau [2021] SGCA 43, the Court of Appeal opined in obiter that they would maintain their preference for the approach endorsed in obiter in Comfort Management Pte Ltd v OGSP Engineering Pte Ltd [2018] 1 SLR 979 in the treatment of no oral modification clauses.
Read MoreIn Range Construction Pte Ltd v Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 34, the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s and Adjudicator’s decision in allowing the employer’s set-off for liquidated damages under the pre-2019 SOPA regime. In doing so, the Court of Appeal also examined whether the scope of the pre-amendment and current SOPA regime permitted such set-offs, which will be the focus of this blog.
Read MoreIn Frontbuild Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd v JHJ Construction Pte Ltd [2021] SGHC 72, the Singapore High Court considered what happens when a term in the construction contract purports to suspend payments upon termination of the contract, and renders the liability to pay any further sum contingent or conditional upon the operation of some other contract or agreement.
Read MoreIn Vim Engineering Pte Ltd v Deluge Fire Protection (SEA) Pte Ltd [2021] SGHC 63, the High Court held that when a construction contract stipulated that variation works shall be carried out only with written instructions from a designated person, those conditions must be met for a successful variation claim.
Read MoreIn Hwa Aik Engineering Pte Ltd v Munshi Mohammad Faiz and anor [2021] SGHC(A) 1 (“Hwa Aik v Munshi”), the newly established Appellate Division of the High Court refused to grant leave to appeal against the General Division’s recent decision on dual vicarious liability.
Read MoreIn Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 23, the Court of Appeal ordered that the appellant’s solicitor is to bear all the costs incurred in the appeal personally.
Read MoreIn 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 MoreIn 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 MoreIn 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
