Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court): 1. This was an appeal against the decision of the High Court judge ("the Judge") in Olivine Capital Pte Ltd and another v Lee Chiew Leong and another [2013] SGHC 168 ("the GD") dismissing Registrar's Appeal No 125 of 2013 ("RA 125/2013"). That was an appeal against the decision of the assistant registrar ("the AR") in Summons No 608 of 2013 ("SUM 608/2013"), an application made pursuant to O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) ("the Rules of Court"). The Judge agreed with the AR that the parties had compromised all the claims between them. We allowed the appeal against the ruling of the Judge and now give the detailed grounds for our decision. The facts 2. The first appellant, Olivine Capital Pte Ltd ("the First Appellant"), was the leaseholder of a plot of land at 180-188 Rangoon Road. The second appellant, Ong Puay Guan @ Steven Ong ("the Second Appellant"), is the chief executive offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Belinda Ang Saw Ean J: 1. The plaintiff husband, Anthony Guo Ningqun ("the plaintiff'), and the defendant wife, Chan Wing Sun ("the defendant"), were married in Singapore on 19 February 2002. This was a childless marriage that effectively lasted seven years. The parties lived apart since late 2009 after the plaintiff left the defendant behind in Singapore to work in Malaysia. The plaintiff commenced divorce proceedings on 27 April 2010 and interim judgment was granted on 18 July 2011. 2. The ancillary matters before me related to the division of the matrimonial assets and maintenance for the defendant. Background facts 3. The plaintiff is now 52 years old. The defendant is now 49 years old. After a six-month courtship, the parties married in February 2002. This was the plaintiffs second marriage. In the first two years of marriage, both lived and worked in different countries the plaintiff in Singapore and the defendant in Beijing. 4. The plaintiff was a lecturer at the Nanyang Technol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Vinodh Coomaraswamy JC: 1. For virtually all of her working life, the plaintiff has worked in the flowers, gifts, hampers and wreaths business. In 2008, the defendant acquired the business in which she was employed. After the acquisition, the plaintiff continued to serve as the sales manager of this business without interruption, but now with the defendant as her employer. Her employment agreement contains express post-termination non-competition and non-solicitation covenants. 2. In November 2011, the plaintiff resigned from the defendant's employment. In December 2011, the plaintiff's notice period ended and her employment with the defendant came to an end. Shortly afterwards, she informed it that she intended to set up her own business selling flowers and gifts. The defendant reminded the plaintiff of her non-competition covenant and threatened to sue her if she breached it. In the end, it was the plaintiff who sued the defendant in the Subordinate Courts (as the State Courts were t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Chao Hick Tin JA: 1. This was an appeal against the sentence imposed by the district judge ("the DJ") in Public Prosecutor v Lim Hsien Hwei [2013] SGDC 238 ("the GD") in respect of a charge under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) ("the Act") of driving while under the influence of drink. The DJ sentenced the appellant to a fine of $3,000, in default 15 days' imprisonment, and a period of disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles ("disqualification period") of three years from the date of conviction (viz, 31 July 2013). In the appeal, the appellant sought to have the disqualification period reduced from three years to two years. I allowed the appeal and now give my reasons. Background facts 2. At about 5.01am on 6 May 2012, the appellant was driving her car along Keppel Road when she was stopped by police officers patrolling the area. The police officer who approached the appellant noticed that she smelled strongly o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Vinodh Coomaraswamy J. 1. The plaintiff is the lessor of the entire property known as 231 Mountbatten Road, Singapore 397999. The property comprises a number of blocks. This dispute relates to Block C. The plaintiff sub-let units #03-02 to #03-04 on the third storey of Block C to the defendant by a letter of offer dated 12 September 2011. A few months later, the plaintiff sub-let the entire first storey of Block C to the defendant by a letter of offer dated 17 February 2012. 2. On 30 May 2013, the plaintiff sued the defendant asserting that the defendant had breached its obligations in respect of both sub-leases. The plaintiff claimed from the defendant arrears of rent, interest on those arrears and damages arising from the defendant's breaches of both sub-leases. It also sought a declaration that it had lawfully exercised its right of re-entry under one of the sub-leases. On 28 August 2013, the plaintiff applied under O 14 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) for summary ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Choo Han Teck J: 1. The respondent in this Criminal Revision was charged with four charges (DAC 31609 of 2013 to DAC 31612 of 2013) for offences under the Customs Act (Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed) ("CA"). Proceedings with respect to these four charges are currently underway before the State Courts. The respondent is currently on bail, and his matter is scheduled for a Pre-Trial Conference on 28 March 2014. 2. The applicant brings this Criminal Revision, however, to "amend two convictions" recorded against the respondent in 2012. For the purpose of this judgment, when I use the term "amend convictions" I refer to the process of setting aside a recorded conviction, framing an altered charge, and subsequently convicting the individual on the altered charge. I will discuss the complexities inherent in such a process below at [4]. In 2012, the respondent pleaded guilty to two charges of "[offences in relation to possession, storage, conveying and harbouring of goods" under s 128I of the CA. These w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Choo Han Teck J: 1. The appellant, in this appeal against conviction and sentence, was charged with one count of drug trafficking (DAC 35352 of 2012). He was convicted after three days of trial on 2, 3 October and 5 November 2012 before District Judge Eddy Tham ("the DJ"), and sentenced to six years' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. His sentence was ordered to commence on 29 October 2010, the date on which he was first remanded. 2. The appellant filed a notice of appeal against sentence on 12 November 2012, and the corresponding petition on 22 January 2013. At the hearing of the appeal against sentence on 8 May 2013 before Chao Hick Tin JA, the appellant indicated he wanted to appeal against his conviction as well. He was subsequently granted leave to file his appeal against conviction out of time, and is now appealing against both conviction and sentence. For the reasons below, the appeal against both conviction and sentence is dismissed. 3. The appellant was convicted of hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Choo Han Teck J: 1. This case was brought by a company that used to run a pharmacy. It recently lost its premises, and now sues its former employee, whose husband's business took over its spot. The plaintiff's claim is in employment law (breach of duty of fidelity) and tort (conspiracy and inducing breach of contract). 2. The plaintiff's predecessor, Trident Pharm, was a wholesaler of pharmaceutical, medical and dental products. In 1997, it obtained a lease to operate a retail pharmacy in the building of the National Dental Centre of Singapore ("NDC"). The premises were leased to Trident Pharm on various conditions, including a condition that it would not charge its customers more than the prices agreed and approved by the NDC. Trident Pharm's lease commenced in 1997, and spanned a period of three years with an option to renew for a further two years. 3. Trident Pharm's extended lease expired in 2002 and it succeeded in obtaining a fresh term by tender. In the same year, the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Choo Han Teck J: 1. This is an application by the defendants to set aside the mareva injunction granted pursuant to Summons No 4333 of 2013. Summons No 4333 of 2013 concerned an application by the plaintiff in this case, before me on 29 August 2013, for an injunction against the defendants in this case, prohibiting the disposal of their assets in Singapore up to the value of US$900,000. For the first defendant, the injunction extended to monies in its corporate bank accounts, whereas for the second and third defendants, the injunction extended to their shares in the first defendant. 2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated in Hong Kong, engaged in the business of mining and trading minerals. The first defendant is a trading company primarily involved in the wood and pulp business, incorporated in Singapore. The second and third defendants are directors of the first defendant, and are involved in the day-to-day running of the business. Each of them owns 50% of the shares of the first ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Edmund Leow JC: 1. The defendant is a property developer. On 29 October 2009 it engaged the plaintiff as its main contractor for the development of three blocks of apartments at Oei Tiong Ham Park. Under the main contract, the plaintiff was required to and did provide two performance bonds for the sum of $988,888.80 (10% of the total contract price) in lieu of a deposit as security for performance of its obligations. 2. A dispute arose between the parties, which was subsequently referred to arbitration. Arbitration had not yet begun when on 14 August 2013 the defendant issued demands to the insurer for the total amount of the performance bonds. The plaintiff claimed the calls were unconscionable and filed this application for an injunction to restrain the defendant from calling on the performance bonds "until the determination or outcome of the arbitration hereto". 3. I heard the application on 1 November 2013 and dismissed it the same day with costs of $10,000 to the defendant. On 5 N...
Tag this Judgment!