In the recent England and Wales Court of Appeal (“EWCA”) decision of Rushbond Plc v The JS Design Partnership LLP [2021] EWCA Civ 1889 (“Rushbond v JS Design Appeal”), the EWCA allowed the appeal and held that it was arguable that the case was not a “pure omissions” case.
Read MoreIn Leow Peng Yam v Kang Jia Dian Aryall [2021] SGHC 275, the High Court held that knowledge within the meaning of Sections 24A(2)(b), 24(4)(b) and 24A(6)(a) of the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) must include a reasonable cognitive understanding of the information within the plaintiff’s possession. Hence, if the plaintiff did not have the sufficient cognitive function for the requisite knowledge, time would not begin to run for the purposes of the limitation period until the plaintiff had regained sufficient cognitive function.
Read MoreIn the recent England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (“EWCA”) decision of EUI Ltd v UK Vodaphone Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1771 (“EUI v Vodaphone”), the EWCA declined to grant a disclosure of information under the principle in Norwich Pharmacal v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133 against the service provider of mobile telephone services.
Read MoreIn the decision of Tan Hock Keng v Malaysian Trustees Bhd and another matter [2021] SGHC(A) 18, the Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed the appeal to set aside the registration of a consent judgment granted in Malaysia on the basis that there was no “appeal” within the meaning of Section 3(2)(e) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed) (“RECJA”).
Read MoreIn the recent decision Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd & Anor v Grafik Architects Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 2948 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court dismissed an application made to strike out the claim as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and/or because it is an abuse of process. The Court found that although there was need for further particularisation on some issues, the Particulars of Claim clearly disclosed a cause of action and reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
Read MoreIn the recent England and Wales Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) decision of Mansion Place Ltd v Fox Industrial Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 2972 (TCC) (“Mansion v Fox”), the TCC made some observations concerning liquidated damages.
Read MoreIn Doo Wan Tsong Charles and others v Oxley Jasper Pte Ltd and another [2021] SGHC 249 (“DWT x Oxley”), the Singapore High Court held that a mistake by one party as to the nature or quality of a contractual term does not justify rectification of the contract.
Read MoreIn Glenville, Chantell v Quek Swee Chong and another [2021] SGHC 237, the High Court held that the Writ of Summons which expired on a Saturday, a non-working day, was validly served on the following Monday, which was the next working day.
Read MoreIn Nambu PVD Pte Ltd v UBTS Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 98 (“Nambu v UBTS”), the Court of Appeal dealt with when a contract may be “supplemented” by additional terms pursuant to a previous course of dealing between the parties or by way of incorporation by reference.
Read MoreIshan Anoop Sakraney v Ameet Nalin Parikh and another matter [2021] SGHC(A) 12 concerned an appeal from the decision of the High Court. The dispute turned on whether, on a proper construction of Clause 4.2 of the contract in question, a party who completed his obligations within the relevant period was only entitled to be paid upon the other party’s receipt of the sale proceeds.
Read More
