Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Edmund Leow JC: 1. The Applicant and the Respondent were named as the joint executors and trustees in the Will of their late father ("the Testator"). The Applicant has come to court to determine the true construction of cl 4 of the Will. The Respondent, her older brother, does not agree with her interpretation and opposes her application. Counsel for the parties appeared before me on 21 May 2014. After considering their arguments, I dismissed the application. I now give my reasons. Background 2. The Testator was a businessman who was the sole shareholder and director of Lau Loon Seng Holdings Pte Ltd ("the Company"). The Company was a holding company and wholly owned four subsidiary companies ("the Subsidiaries"). Three of the Subsidiaries were incorporated in Malaysia, while Southern Printing and Publishing Co Pte Ltd ("SPPCPL") was incorporated in Singapore.1 SPPCPL is in the business of printing and publishing periodicals, books and magazines, as well as brochures, musical books and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Choo Han Teck J: 1. This case concerns costs. Parties appeared before me in 2013. In my judgment, dated 13 November 2013 (BMG v BMH [2013] SGHC 244), I stated (at [10]) that I would hear submissions on costs at a later date if parties were unable to agree. As is evident, no agreement was reached. 2. Before me, counsel for the plaintiff/wife, Mr Yim, argued that the plaintiff should be entitled to costs plus disbursements, in the following manner: (a) $150,000 in costs; (b) $5,159.58 in disbursements; (c) $4,708 for the Health Sciences Authority ("HSA") report; and (d) $44,708.84 for the accountant's report. His reasoning was that costs follow the event. As the plaintiff had obtained a judgment in her favour before me, she should be entitled to costs. 3. Counsel for the defendant/husband, Ms Tan, agreed that costs should generally follow the event. She also did not seem to dispute the quantum. However, she disagreed that the judgment was in the plaintiff's favour. Rather, she submitted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Choo Han Teck J: 1. This was an application by the plaintiff to remove a caveat lodged on her property located at 1 Rodyk Street #10-11 Watermark Robertson Quay, Singapore ("the Property"). This caveat was lodged by the defendant, a licensed moneylender that had (unbeknownst to the plaintiff) extended a loan to the plaintiff's former husband. 2. The Property was the matrimonial property of the plaintiff and her former husband, Ore Boon Leong ("OBL"). It was held by them as joint tenants. When the marriage failed, the parties agreed on a deed of settlement dated 16 January 2012. Clauses 4.4 - 4.6 of the deed of settlement dealt with the disposal of the Property. I reproduce those clauses below: 4.4 The Wife shall be at liberty to sell the matrimonial property in the open market at any time and the proceeds of sale shall be applied towards the payment of the following: - discharge of the housing loan only; - refund of monies to both [parties'] CPF accounts (with interest) in respect of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
George Wei JC: 1. There are two appeals which arise from the learned District Judge's ("the DJ's") decision in District Court Suit No 403 of 2011. The first appeal, District Court Appeal No 19 of 2013 ("DCA 19/2013"), is filed by the plaintiff of the original action, Abani Trading Pte Ltd ("Abani"). This appeal is on the issue of whether the defendant, BNP Paribas ("BNP"), breached its duty or the terms of the letter of credit, and failed to exercise due care in examining the relevant documentation that was presented to it. The second appeal, District Court Appeal No 24 of 2013 ("DCA 24/2013"), is filed by BNP against the DJ's decision to award costs in favour of BNP on a standard basis, as opposed to an indemnity basis. The two appeals deal with different subject matters; the appeal in DCA 24/2013 will only be relevant if the appeal in DCA 19/2013 is dismissed. After considering the arguments made by both parties, I am dismissing the appeal in DCA 19/2013 and allowing the appeal in DC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Lee Kim Shin JC: 1. This was a long marriage of 28 years. The Plaintiff ("the Wife") and the Defendant ("the Husband") were married on 29 July 1985. They have two daughters, aged 28 and 24 years old. 2. The Wife filed for divorce on the ground of unreasonable behaviour in 2013. Interim judgment for divorce was granted on 9 April 2013 and made final on 15 April 2014. 3. The issues in the proceedings before me concerned the division of the parties' matrimonial assets and maintenance for the Wife. 4. The main dispute in the division of the matrimonial assets was the veracity of an allegation by the Wife that the Husband had dissipated his assets. The Wife alleged that the Husband had dissipated his assets to the tune of $1.5m. I shall refer to this $1.5m as the "Alleged Dissipated Sum" and the amount of the dissipated sum based on my findings as the "Assessed Dissipated Sum". 5. While I was satisfied that some of the Husband's assets were indeed unaccounted for, I was not convinced by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
1. On 19 December 2009, a flashover incident occurred in the High Tension Switch Gear Room ("HTSGR") on the Plaintiff's premises at the Queen Wing of 12 Queen Street, Singapore ("the Premises"). The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant, the Plaintiff's Licensed Electrical Worker ("LEW"), the losses and damages it alleges to have suffered as a result of the flashover incident. The trial was bifurcated and the only issue to be dealt with in this trial is that of liability. This requires an assessment of whether the Defendant had owed the Plaintiff a contractual and tortious duty of care. If the answer is yes, I must ascertain whether there is a breach of this duty. Thereafter I have to determine if there is any contributory negligence on the Plaintiff's part which will serve to mitigate the liability of the Defendant such that the Defendant is only liable for a portion of the losses and damages suffered by the Plaintiff. The facts The Plaintiff 2. The Plaintiff is a company that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Choo Han Teck J: 1. The appellant was charged with two counts of having commercial sex with a minor under s 376B(1) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). Both charges pertained to the same victim. The offences were alleged to have been committed sometime in the second and third weeks of July 2011 respectively. The victim was born on 14 December 1993, and was hence 17 at the time. The appellant was convicted on both charges after a trial before District Judge Kamala Ponnampalam, and sentenced to four months' imprisonment on each charge. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant initially appealed against conviction and sentence, and has been on bail pending appeal since. Before me, he withdrew his appeal against sentence. As such, the only question before me was whether the conviction was sound. 2. Counsel for the appellant, Mr Ram Goswami, mentioned he had 13 "grounds" of appeal in his submissions. These could generally be distilled to four arguments, namely, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Choo Han Teck J: 1. The plaintiffs in this Originating Summons are the executors and trustees of the estate of a very wealthy man. The three defendants are sisters and are some of the beneficiaries to the estate. In 2011, the second and third defendants commenced proceedings under the Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed) for a declaration that the first defendant was unable, by reason of her mental incapacity, to make decisions in respect of her own affairs ("the MCA Suit"). 2. On 11 December 2012, the district judge granted the second and third defendants' (as plaintiffs in that suit) application and, further, appointed the second and third defendants as deputies of the first defendant. The first defendant appealed to the High Court and on 1 October 2013, Lai Siu Chiu J allowed her appeal and set aside the district judge's orders. 3. On 15 November 2012, before the district judge's decision, the executors had resolved to make an interim distribution of 39,341,281 to the benefic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Judith Prakash J: 1. This judgment involves parties from two different jurisdictions, Singapore and India. It involves the breach of both a corporate guarantee given by the second defendant and personal guarantees given by the third and fourth defendants in favour of the plaintiff. These defendants have not entered appearance to these proceedings and the plaintiff has sought to obtain judgment on the merits of its case as opposed to obtaining a default judgment under O 13 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 332, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) ("the ROC"). This is because a judgment on the merits is enforceable in India, the jurisdiction in which the defendants are present, while a default judgment is not. The facts 2. The plaintiff, Indian Overseas Bank, is an Indian-registered bank with a branch office in Singapore. The first defendant, Svil Agro Pte Ltd ("the Company"), is a Singapore-incorporated company involved in the business of general wholesale trade. 3. The second defendant, Surya Vinayak Indus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
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!