In Saxo Bank A/S v Innopac Holdings Limited [2021] SGHC 214 (“Saxo v Innopac”), the High Court upheld a decision to strike out the defendant’s defence and counterclaim and to enter judgment for the plaintiff due to the defendant’s repeated failures to comply with its discovery obligations, including those subject to an “unless order”
Read MoreIn an ex tempore judgment, the Court of Appeal in Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co, Ltd and another v HTL International Holdings Pte Ltd and others [2021] SGCA 87 dismissed the Shareholders’ appeal to displace the discretion exercised by the Company’s judicial managers in choosing to sell the asset in question to the first respondent instead of another prospective buyer.
Read MoreIn the recent High Court decision of Mah Kiat Seng v Attorney General Chambers & 2 Ors [2021] SGC 202 (“Mah Kiat Seng”), the High Court dealt with the issue of whether video recordings that were made by and belong to the government could be withheld from discovery and production.
Read MoreIn CNA v CNB and another and another matter [2021] SGHC 192, the High Court held that the plaintiffs’ applications to set aside the arbitral award was not time-barred because the timeline was extended by an earlier application of one of the plaintiffs to correct and/or interpret the award.
Read MoreIt is not common to come across a case of duress. In the recent United Kingdom Supreme Court (“UKSC”) decision of Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 40 (“Pakistan International”), the UKSC considered whether a party can set aside a contract on the ground that it was entered into because of the other party threatening to carry out a lawful act.
Read MoreIn Cheung Teck Cheong Richard and others v LVND Investments Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 77, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision to stay the proceedings in favour of arbitration, finding that there was no arbitration agreement, whether ad hoc or otherwise. The Court of Appeal also disagreed with the High Court’s observations in obiter, stating that Section 4(6) of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) (“AA”) is limited in its application and “cannot be construed to permit the creation or formation of a new arbitration agreement through the operation of its deeming effect”.
Read MoreIn Eco World – Ballymore Embassy Gardens Company Ltd v Dobler UK Ltd [2021] EWHC 2207 (TCC) (“Eco World v Dobler”), the English Technology and Construction Court dealt with the issue of whether the liquidated damages provision in question is void and/or unenforceable because it does not contain any mechanism for reducing the amount of liquidated damages in the event of partial possession in advance of practical completion.
Read MoreIn Triple Point Technology, Inc (Respondent) v PTT Public Company Ltd (Appellant) [2021] UKSC 29, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal on the issue of entitlement to liquidated damages, holding that on the construction of the liquidated damages clause, although work was not completed, the clause applied so that rights to liquidated damages accrued prior to termination were not lost.
Read MoreIn CIZ v CJA [2021] SGHC 178, the High Court set aside the arbitral award relating to the X Opportunity as the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on a ground that was not set out in the pleadings or submissions.
Read MoreIn Beattie Passive Norse Ltd & Anor v Canham Consulting Ltd (No. 2 Costs) [2021] EWHC 1414 (TCC) (“Beattie v Canham”), the court awarded indemnity costs. It is useful as an illustration of the various factors that courts will take into consideration when determining whether indemnity costs should (or should not) be awarded.
Read More
