THE ENFORCEABILITY OF INTEREST CLAUSES AND THE PENALTY RULE
Are provisions for contractual interest and contractual default interest penalty clauses? In Alternative Advisors Investments Pte Ltd and another v Asidokona Mining Resources Pte Ltd and another [2022] SGHC 41 (“AAI v Asidokona”), the High Court held that the contractual interest clause concerned a primary obligation that was not regulated by the rule against penalties, while the rate under the contractual default interest clause had not been proven by the defendants to so “extravagant and unconscionable” as to constitute a penalty clause in law.
Read More
DO I NEED TO OBTAIN LEAVE OF COURT TO APPEAL AGAINST AN INSOLVENT COMPANY?
In An Guang Shipping Pte. Ltd. (Judicial Managers Appointed) & 39 Ors v Ocean Tankers (Pte.) Ltd (In Liquidation) [2022] SGCA 13, the liquidators of an insolvent company failed in their application to strike out a notice of appeal. The liquidators had contended that the appellants had failed to obtain the leave of court under s. 133(1) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 before taking up the appeal. This was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
Read More
DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIPS
Can a partner dissolve a partnership by serving notice on the other partner? And when would the court step in to appoint a liquidator / receiver for a partnership? These issues are addressed in Tan Huah Sun v Tan Huah Tai & Anor [2022] SGHC 29.
Read More
USING SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLE TO COMMENCE LITIGATION NOT AGAINST THE RULES ON MAINTENANCE AND CHAMPERTY
In POA Recovery Pte Ltd v Yau Kwok Seng and others and another appeal [2022] SGHC(A) 2, the Appellate Division of the High Court had the opportunity to consider, among others, whether a special purpose corporate entity incorporated solely for the purpose of bringing litigation had locus standi as an assignee to sue.
Read More
FRUSTRATION OF COMMONLY HELD PURPOSES AND COVID-19
In Lachman’s Emporium Pte Ltd v Kang Tien Kuan (trading as Lookers Music Café, a sole proprietorship) [2022] SGHC 19, the General Division of the High Court dismissed a summary judgment application on the basis that the defendant has established a bona fide defence of the frustration of the parties’ shared purpose of using the premises in question as a music lounge.
Read More
PEREMPTORY ORDERS IN ARBITRATION
In Sai Wan Shipping Ltd v Landmark Line Co, Ltd [2022] SGHC 8, the High Court was confronted with a Second/Final Arbitration Award dated 27 May 2021 (the “second award”) which was made by the arbitrator without receiving any evidence or submissions from a party, excluded by reason of an earlier peremptory order made by the arbitrator. The second award was set aside for being made in breach of natural justice that prejudiced that party’s rights.
Read More
WHETHER TO STAY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS DUE TO CONCURRENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
In Debenho Pte Ltd & Anor v Envy Global Trading Pte. Ltd. & Anor [2022] SGHC 7, the Singapore High Court had to consider whether the defendant should be permitted to stay civil proceedings brought against the defendant on the basis that, among others, the defendant also faces criminal proceedings arising out of the same facts.
Read More
THE EFFECT OF A NON-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE
In Gravitas International Associates Pte Ltd v Invictus Group Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 2, the Plaintiff claimed to be the assignee of all “rights, benefits, interests, claims and titles” by way of a deed, and consequently, the proper plaintiff in this suit. The High Court held that the Plaintiff did not satisfy the preliminary issue of requisite standing to bring the claims. In doing so, the High Court considered the non-assignment clause and the effect of a purported assignment contrary to the clause.
Read More
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS WHERE THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE CLAIM OR CONTROVERSY IN THE ACTION
In TA Private Capital Security Agent Limited & another v UD Trading Group Holding Pte Ltd & another [2021] SGHCR 10, the High Court dismissed an application for a stay of proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens under Order 12 Rule 7(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) as the applicant was not confronted by any substantive claim or controversy in the action.
Read More
WHEN TO HOLD A NON-PARTY LIABLE FOR COSTS IN THE SICC?
In Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and another [2021] SGHC(I) 18 (“Kiri v Senda”), the Singapore International Commercial Court dealt with whether a non-party should be held liable for costs of the proceedings.
Read More
