INSPECTION OF BANKERS’ BOOKS UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT
In Alliance Divine Impex Pte Ltd v Arulappan Tony (DBS Bank Ltd, non-party) [2024] SGHC 227 (the “Judgment”), the applicant applied under s 175(1) of the Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) (“EA”) and/or O 11 r 11 of the Rules of Court 2021 (“ROC 2021”) for the non-party, DBS Bank Ltd (“DBS”), to produce the respondent’s bank statements and related specific documents. The High Court allowed the application pursuant to s 175(1) of the EA, but also made observations on the relationship between s 175 and O 11 r 11 of the ROC 2021.
Read More
CLAIMS IN UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND QUANTUM MERUIT
In Ng Chee Tian and another v Ng Chee Pong and others [2024] SGHC 226 (“NCT v NCP”), the High Court made certain interesting observations in relation to the interaction between claims in unjust enrichment vis-à-vis other conventional causes of action.
Read More
JCT STANDARD FORM AND CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT TO TERMINATE
While it is not so usual to encounter the JCT Standard Form of Design and Build Contract in Singapore, the England and Wales Court of Appeal decision in Providence Building Services Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 962 (“PB v HH”) shows the importance of paying attention to the phrasing of contractual provisions in context of the contractor’s right to terminate.
Read More
STRIKING OUT OF AN ORIGINATING APPLICATION
In Sullivan, Sir Cornelius Sean v Hill Capital Pte Ltd and another [2024] SGHC 198, the second respondent succeeded in striking out the whole of the action against her in HC/OA 820/2023 (“OA 820”).
Read More
COLLATERAL WARRANTIES AND SOPA - FOOD FOR THOUGHT
The recent United Kingdom Supreme Court decision of Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP (formerly Simply Construct (UK) LLP) [2024] UKSC 23 (“Judgment”) is an interesting case on whether collateral warranties given to third parties are subject to statutory adjudication.
Read More
SERVICE OF WINDING UP APPLICATION
In the ex tempore judgment of Gunvor SA v Atlantis Commodities Trading Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 192 (“Gunvor”), the High Court reiterated the importance of ensuring proper service in winding up applications.
Read More
WHEN IS THE MATTER IN DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN WRITING FOR PURPOSES OF SOPA?
The Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 (“SOPA”) applies to any contracts that is made in writing per s. 4(1) SOPA. But if a contract is not wholly made in writing, it can be treated as such if “the matter in dispute between the parties to the contract is in writing” per s. 4(5) SOPA. So, what does this mean? The High Court in CGS Construction Pte Ltd v Quek & Quek Civil Engineering Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 183 (“CGS v QCE”) addressed this important issue.
Read More
METHODS OF SUBSTITUTED SERVICE
In Zhang Jinhua v Yip Zhao Lin [2024] SGHC 180, the High Court made some observations about “the importance of selecting methods of substituted service that would be most likely to be effective in providing notice of the proceedings to the other party in each case”.
Read More
DOES A SETTLEMENT OF “ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION” BAR ALL FUTURE CLAIMS?
It is important to be careful when settling claims. This is illustrated in the recent England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court) decision of Dawnvale Cafe Components Ltd v Hylgar Properties Ltd [2024] EWHC 1199 (TCC) (the “Judgment”).
Read More
WHETHER PERMISSION IS REQUIRED TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE ON APPEAL & WHETHER EXTENSION OF TIME SHOULD BE GRANTED TO FILE A STRIKING OUT APPLICATION
This week’s blog covers Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri & 11 Ors v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar suing as the Administratrix of the Estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar (India Passport No. HXXXXXXX), deceased @ Anor [2024] SGHC(A) 20 (“Darsan v Lakshmi”), a decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court (the “Court”).
Read More
