Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : May-29-2014
Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the judgment of the court): 1. This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court in Registrar's Appeal No 273 of 2012, where the judge ("the Judge") dismissed the appellant's appeal against an award of damages made by an assistant registrar ("the AR"). The Judge's decision is reported in Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei Yen [2013] 3 SLR 1113 ("the GD"), and the AR's decision, in Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei Yen [2012] SGHCR 8. 2. The case concerns the assessment of damages for the loss of future earnings ("LFE") and future medical expenses ("FME") of a tort victim who is injured in an accident. The conventional approach in assessing damages in such cases involves the selection of: (a) an appropriate multiplicand representing the plaintiff's projected annual future earnings or medical expenses (depending on whether it is LFE or FME that is being assessed); and (b) an appropriate multiplier representing the plaintiff's remaining working life or life ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-13-2014
Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court): 1. These were two related appeals brought by the accused person (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant") and the Public Prosecutor, respectively, following a trial and the finding of guilt by the High Court judge ("the Judge") against the Appellant on three sexual offence charges and the acquittal of the Appellant of a single charge of impersonation under s 170 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) ("s 170" and "the Code" respectively). CCA No 7 of 2013 ("CCA 7") was the Appellant's appeal against the convictions found against him as well as the sentences imposed. CCA No 8 of 2013 ("CCA 8") was the Public Prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal. 2. At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed CCA 7 but allowed CCA 8 and convicted the Appellant on the charge of impersonation. We now give our reasons. The Charges 3. The charges which were brought against the Appellant were as follows: 1st Charge: [You, the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-11-2014
Chan Wei Sern, Paul AR: 1. The plaintiff is a Singapore citizen who for many years carried on business activities in Malaysia. As a result of unsatisfied personal guarantees which he issued in favour of Malaysian companies, two separate judgments were rendered against the plaintiff by the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur. The rights to these judgments were subsequently transferred to the first defendant. On the basis of one of these judgments, the 1st defendant petitioned for the plaintiff to be adjudged a bankrupt in Malaysia. On the basis of the other, the 1st defendant applied for the plaintiff to be adjudged a bankrupt in Singapore. On both counts, the 1st defendant was successful and the plaintiff was declared a bankrupt in Malaysia and Singapore in turn. In respect of the Singapore bankruptcy, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants were appointed as private trustees to act in place of the Official Assignee. 2. The plaintiff now seeks to annul the Singapore bankruptcy order. To persu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-25-2014
Choo Han Teck J: 1. The plaintiff is a Chinese woman married to a German of Caucasian descent. They have a son conceived in 2006 through an assisted fertilisation procedure commonly known as In-Vitro Fertilisation or "IVF" for short. In October 2010 the plaintiff delivered a daughter (named "Baby P" in this action) also conceived through IVF. When the IVF procedure was carried out in respect of Baby P, a mistake was made and the plaintiff's egg was fertilised with the sperm of a third party male ("the Donor") instead of the sperm of the plaintiff's husband. The plaintiff sued the defendants in the tort of negligence and breach of contract. 2. The first defendant is the company that owned the second defendant, which was the medical centre in which the IVF procedure was carried out on the plaintiff. The third defendant was the embryologist who was responsible for the collection and storage of the bottle containing the plaintiff's husband's sperms. The fourth defendant was the Chief Embry...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : May-23-2014
Wong Baochen AR: 1. The plaintiff was a company incorporated in the United States and was the registered proprietor of CONVERSE trade marks in Singapore. Some time in 2012, the plaintiff was made aware that the defendants were involved in counterfeiting activities relating to the plaintiff's products, and thereafter commenced action against the defendants for trade mark infringement and passing off. By the time of the hearings before me, interlocutory judgment had been obtained against the defendants and the plaintiff had elected to seek statutory damages under section 31(5) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) for trade mark infringement involving counterfeit goods. The issue before me was therefore a narrow one of the quantum of statutory damages to be awarded under section 31(5) of the Trade Marks Act, having regard to the factors set out under section 31(6) of the Trade Marks Act. Relevant facts of the present case 2. In 2012, through the efforts of a private investigator,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : May-14-2014
Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): 1. These two appeals came before us after a long and somewhat convoluted procedural course. Unfortunately, some part of litigation has been in vain because, in our judgment, the respondent's claim for damages was premised on a fundamental conceptual error. 2. Civil Appeal No 48 of 2013 ("CA 48/2013") concerns two interrelated contracts. The first contract was governed by an arbitration agreement while the second was governed by a jurisdiction clause in favour of the Singapore courts. The second contract provided that a breach of its terms would also give the respondent the right to terminate the first contract. The respondent purported to exercise this right when the appellant breached the second contract. The critical issue in this appeal is whether the respondent can claim, in an action for breach of the second contract, damages for its loss of profits arising from the termination of the first contract. 3. In Civil Appeal No ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : May-06-2014
Chan Seng Onn J 1. This dispute arose from the third defendant's failure to achieve an initial public offering ("IPO") of its shares on a recognised stock exchange. 2. The plaintiff entered into a contractual engagement with the second and third defendants sometime in early 2006. The plaintiff was to provide corporate finance advisory services through two of its personnel with the aim of steering the third defendant towards an IPO. If this was successful, the plaintiff stood to be issued a portion of shares in the third defendant. Unfortunately, the planned IPO ground to a halt after an underwhelmingly short-lived pursuit which lasted not more than three months. The parties' contractual engagement, however, did not end there. Instead, after protracted negotiations, the parties managed to enter into a new agreement in late 2006 to suit the changed circumstances. Their contractual relationship only came to an end sometime in early 2008. This was when it became clear to the third defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : May-05-2014
Judith Prakash J: 1. Until 21 December 2011, ADJ, the plaintiff-husband herein was married to ADK, the defendant-wife. On that date, an interim judgment for divorce was made on an uncontested basis on the ground that the plaintiff had behaved in such a way that the defendant could not reasonably be expected to live with him. The plaintiff was not happy with this outcome. He filed an application for the interim judgment to be rescinded. This application having failed, he then appealed against the decision to the High Court. His appeal was heard by Choo Han Teck J ("the Judge") who dismissed it. Throughout the proceedings, the plaintiff has acted in person. 2. By this originating summons, the plaintiff seeks leave of court to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the Judge. The Judge's reasons for his decision are found in his written judgment identified as AWN v AWO and another appeal [2012] SGHC 228 ("the Judgment"). 3. The defendant resists this application on the basi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-16-2014
Judith Prakash J: 1. In November 1995, Mr Ng Chee Weng, the plaintiff in this law suit, became one of the founding shareholders of a company called SinCo Technologies Pte Ltd ("SinCo"). The plaintiff held his shares on trust for his friend, Mr Bryan Lim Jit Ming, ("Mr Lim"), because SinCo had been set up to provide a vehicle for a new business to be undertaken by Mr Lim. In later years, the plaintiff also acquired shares for himself. At all times Mr Lim was the man in charge of SinCo and he built it up into a dynamic and successful business. The plaintiff remained a shareholder on the books until 2002 when he transferred all his shares to Mr Lim. He remained a director until 2005. 2. In 2009, the plaintiff approached Mr Lim and asked for payment of his share of the dividends declared by SinCo during the financial years from 2003 until and including 2006. The plaintiff claimed that the share transfer form he had executed in 2002 was only a paper transfer. It was not till 2007 that he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-18-2014
Lee Seiu Kin: 1. In this summons the defendant applied for a declaration that its acceptance on 24 September 2013 of the plaintiff's offer to settle dated 28 July 2011 was valid and that the action had been settled on the following terms: (a) The defendant is to pay to the plaintiff the sum of S$2,588,666. (b) The defendant is to pay to the plaintiff the plaintiff's costs of the claim and counterclaim to be taxed if not agreed: (i) on a standard basis, from the date of commencement of these proceedings on 20 May 2011 to 11 August 2011; and (ii) on an indemnity basis, from 12 August 2011 up to the date of the defendant's notice of acceptance (ie, 24 September 2013). (c) The defendant is to pay to the plaintiff interest at 1.5% per annum, for the period from 20 May 2011 up to the date of payment. (d) The plaintiff is to discontinue its claims against the defendant within seven days of payment of the sum of S$2,588,666, interest and costs. 2. On 5 November 2013, after hearing submissions ...
Tag this Judgment!