CHANGING OF EXPERTS AND EXPERT SHOPPING

Under the new Rules of Court 2021, Order 12 rule 2 provides that no expert evidence may be used in Court without the Court’s approval, and Order 12 rule 3(2) provides that save in a special case, a party may not rely on expert evidence from more than one expert. So, what happens if a party wants to change the expert? This week, we take a look at the case of University of Manchester v John McAslan & Partners Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 2750 (TCC) (“UOM v JMP”) to see how it may shed some light on this issue.

Read More
Xian Ying Tan
SEPARABILITY IN ARBITRATION – NEWCASTLE EXPRESS

In this week’s blog, we look at the recent England and Wales Court of Appeal decision of DGL Project & Chartering Ltd v Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Ltd (Re “Newcastle Express”) [2022] EWCA Civ 1555 (“Newcastle Express”), and specifically, on how Males LJ addressed the principle of separability.

Read More
Xian Ying Tan
DEFAMATION - A SHORT REFRESHER

In Continental Steel Pte Ltd v Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Southeast Asia Pte Ltd and another [2022] SGHC 292, Dedar Singh Gill J was faced with a dispute between two trade rivals in the steel and construction industry in an action for defamation. We take a look at some of the key points raised.

Read More
Xian Ying Tan
BMSMA AND AN SP’S REQUEST TO EFFECT IMPROVEMENTS

In Prem N Shamdasani v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 0920 (“Prem v MCST920”), Goh Yihan JC considered the interaction between s. 37(3), 37(4), 88(1) and 111 of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 (“BMSMA”), which (in gist) deals with a management corporation’s power to authorize a subsidiary proprietor’s request to effect improvements to his / her lot and remedial provisions.

Read More
Xian Ying Tan
IS AN ADJUDICATOR'S FINDING THAT A PAYMENT CLAIM WAS VALIDLY SERVED A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS?

In Emergent Engineering Pte Ltd v China Construction Realty Co Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 276, Justice Tan Siong Thye dismissed the Respondent’s application to set aside the Adjudication Determination and the consequent Order of Court which enforced the Adjudication Determination. Among others, Tan J held that the Adjudicator’s finding that the payment claim in question was validly served was a determination on the merits which the Court was not entitled to review.

Read More
Xian Ying Tan