Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Jan-07-2014
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. The applicant of this OA is an officer of Delhi and Andaman Nicobar Islands Civil Service (DANICS, in short), who is before us with the following prayers:- (a) direct the respondents to consider and promote the applicant on adhoc basis to the excadre post equivalent of DANICS w.e.f. 19.10.2011 and if in the event he is not found fit on the said date, then w.e.f. 14.11.2012 with all consequential benefits and grant all benefits consequent thereto to the applicant as being given to his juniors consequent to their promotion vide order dated 19.10.2011 or 14.11.2012 (as the case may be). (b) award costs of the proceedings and (c) pass any other order/direction which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The applicant was initially appointed as Grade-II/Delhi Administration Subordinate Services (DASS, in short) on 14.08.1986. He was promoted to DASS Grade-I o...
Tag this Judgment!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 : 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 : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
Decided on : May-23-2014
On appeal from: The North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Makgoka J sitting as court of first instance). The following order is made: 1. The appeal is upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel. 2. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with the following: The appeal in terms of s 47(9)(e) of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 is dismissed with costs, such to include the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel. JUDGMENT Navsa JA (Mhlantla and Leach JJA and Van Zyl and Mocumie AJJAconcurring): [1] This is an appeal directed at a decision of the North Gauteng High Court (Makgoka J), which upheld an appeal by Terraplas (Pty) Ltd (Terraplas) against a tariff determination made by the appellant, the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (the Commissioner), in terms of the provisions of s 47(9)(a)(i)(aa)[1]of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 (the Act). The tariff determination in question was that certain plastic tiles imported by T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Decided on : May-16-2014
K. Sripavan, J. The Accused Appellant Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the œAppellant?) was indicted before the High Court of Hambantota on the following two counts : Count 1. That he did on the 28th of September, 1977 kidnap one Jayamunigedera Suramya from the lawful custody of her guardian Anulawathie thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 354 of the Penal Code. Count 2 That he did commit the offence of Rape on the said Jayamunigedera Suramya during the period 28th September 1997 and 26th October 1997 thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 364(2) of the Penal Code. The High Court found the Appellant guilty on both counts at the trial and sentenced him on 28.09.2005 as follows:- Count 1 Five years Rigorous Imprisonment. Count 2 Ten years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2500/= and an order for compensation in a sum of Rs. 5000/= with a default term of six months Rigorous Imprisonment. The Court further ordered that both sentences to run concur...
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 : Australia High Court
Decided on : Apr-02-2014
1. FRENCH CJ, CRENNAN AND BELL JJ. Section 12(2) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("the Liability Act") directs a court, when awarding damages relating to the death of or injury to a person, to disregard the amounts (if any) by which the claimant's gross weekly earnings would, but for the injury or death, have exceeded three times the amount of average weekly earnings at the date of the award ("the s 12(2) limitation"). The s 12(2) limitation applies to awards of damages for past and future economic loss due to the deprivation or impairment of earning capacity, for past economic loss due to loss of earnings, and for "the loss of expectation of financial support"[1]. The latter expression is apt to describe an award of damages under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (NSW) ("the Relatives Act"). The issue presented by the appeal is whether, in the case of an award of damages for the loss of expectation of financial support, the s 12(2) limitation is to be construed as applying ...
Tag this Judgment!