In National Oilwell Varco Norway AS (formerly known as Hydralift AS) v Keppel FELS Ltd (formerly known as Far East Levingston Shipbuilding Ltd) [2021] SGHC 124, the High Court set aside leave which the plaintiff had obtained to enforce an award issued in favour of “another legal person”. In reaching its decision, the High Court considered that the proper approach to enforcement of an arbitral award under the statute was a pure mechanical one.
Read MoreIn the recent Court of Appeal decision of Sun Electric Power Pte Ltd v RCMA Asia Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tong Teik Pte Lte) [2021] SGCA 60 (“Sun Electric”), the Court of Appeal clarified certain issues relating to s. 254(2)(c) of the Companies Act.
Read MoreIn Ong Dan Tze Magdalene v Chee Yoh Chuang and another [2021] SGHC 129, the High Court dismissed the application to ratify the dispositions under Section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed), given that there was lack of good faith by the applicant and the dispositions would not benefit the general body of creditors.
Read MoreIn Dana UK AXLE Ltd v Freudenberg FST GmbH [2021] EWHC 1413 (TCC) (“Dana”), an application to exclude expert witness evidence in the middle of a trial was made successfully.
Read MoreIn Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc [2021] SGCA 50, the appellant had put a question of law to a tribunal in an investment treaty arbitration, and after receiving an answer which it did not like, put the same question before a Singapore court (as the court of the seat) by way of an application for declaratory relief. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s ultimate decision in not granting the declaratory relief, but on different grounds and reasoning.
Read MoreThe recent ex tempore judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in Reputation Administration Service Pte Ltd v Spamhaus Technology Ltd [2021] SGCA 51 is an important reminder that if a party intends to dispute the jurisdiction of the Singapore court over a dispute, the application to do so must be made in a timely manner.
Read MoreIn the recent decision of CDM v CDP [2021] SGCA 45, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to set out its brief views that, unlike the position in Hong Kong, there is no presumption of indemnity costs for an unsuccessful application for setting aside an arbitral award. The position in Singapore remains that awarding costs on a standard basis is the default position, unless exceptional circumstances warrant a departure and hence the imposition of costs on an indemnity basis.
Read MoreIn the Singapore High Court decision of Genuine Pte Ltd v HSBC Bank Middle East Ltd, Dubai [2021] SGHC 104, the High Court dealt with the issue of whether there was proper service of a writ of summons by the plaintiff if the defendant was working remotely and no one was physically present in the defendant’s office when the writ was served.
Read MoreIn 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 More
