[Family Law — Maintenance — wife — variation of maintenance orders due to material change in circumstances]
WTP v WTQ
[2024] SGHCF 38 | Decision Date: 29 Oct 2024 | HCF/DCA 8/2024
In the Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore [2024] SGHCF 38District Court Appeal No 8 of 2024BetweenWTP… AppellantAndWTQ… RespondentGrounds of Decision[Family Law — Maintenance — wife — variation of maintenance orders due to material change in circumstances]This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.WTPvWTQ[2024] SGHCF 38General Division of the High Court (Family Division) — District Court Appeal No 8 of
[Civil Procedure - Service] [Arbitration - award - finality of award] [Arbitration - enforcement - Singapore award]
Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others
[2012] SGHC 212 | Decision Date: 22 Oct 2012 | Originating Summons No 807 of 2010 (Registrar's Appeal No 278 of 2011 and Summons No 4065 of 2011) and Originating Summons No 913 of 2010 (Registrar's Appeal No 279 of 2011 and Summons No 4064 of 2011)
Arbitration Act (Cap143A, 2002Rev Ed) (“the IAA”) to enforce five domestic international awards in Singapore (collectively referred to as “the Singapore Awards”). By the term “domestic international awards”, I refer to international commercial arbitral awards made in the same territory as the forum in which recognition and enforcement is sought, eg, in the context of Singapore, these are arbitral awards rendered under the IAA and the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre 2007 (“the SIAC Rules 2007”), with Singapore as the seat of arbitration. The Plaintiffs are Astro
[Arbitration - Enforcement - Singapore-seated award] [Arbitration - Award - Recourse against award - Setting aside]
[2020] SGHC 113 | Decision Date: 29 May 2020 | HC/OS 1257/2019 ( HC/SUM 6218/2019 ) |HC/OS 1385/2019
In the high court of the republic of singapore[2020] SGHC 113Originating Summons No 1385 of 2019Between(1)Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc.(2)Sureste Properties, Inc.… Plaintiffs And(1)Global Gaming Philippines LLC(2)GGAM Netherlands B.V.… DefendantsOriginating Summons No 1257 of 2019(Summons No 6218 of 2019)Between(1)Global Gaming Philippines LLC(2)GGAM Netherlands B.V.… Plaintiffs And(1)Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc.(2)Sureste Properties, Inc.… Defendantsjudgment[Arbitration] —[Enforcement] — [Singapore-seated ward][Arbitration
[Admiralty and Shipping — Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest — Action in rem — Statutory liens] [Insolvency Law — Administration of insolvent estates — Judicial management — Whether the issuance of an in rem writ renders the in rem writ claimant a creditor of the owner of the vessel within the meaning of s 115 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act] [Insolvency Law — Administration of insolvent estates — Judicial management — Ex parte James principle — Whether the Ex parte James principle affords a free-standing right to recover the net proceeds of the sale of the vessel in Gibraltar — Whether the conduct of the judicial managers rose to a level of opprobrium that required intervention by the court] [Insolvency Law — Administration of insolvent estates — Judicial management — Disposal of assets — Sale of vessel effected by judicial sale in Gibraltar following arrest by the mortgagee — Whether the issuance of an in rem writ in Singapore causes a vessel to be subject to a security within the meaning of s 100(2)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act]
[2024] SGHC 113 | Decision Date: 2 May 2024 | HC/OS 903/2021|HC/OS 902/2021|HC/OS 23/2022
In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2024] SGHC 113Originating Summons No 902 of 2021In the matter of Nan Chiau Maritime (Pte) Ltd (in liquidation)BetweenNatixis, Singapore Branch… Plaintiff And(1)Seshadri Rajagopalan(2)Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia(3)Nan Chiau Maritime (Pte) Ltd (in liquidation)… DefendantsOriginating Summons No 903 of 2021In the matter of Nan Chiau Maritime (Pte) Ltd (in liquidation)BetweenSociete Generale, Singapore Branch… Plaintiff And(1)Seshadri Rajagopalan(2)Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia(3)Nan Chiau Maritime (Pte) Ltd (in liquidation
[Land - interest in land - tenancy in common]
Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne v Su Emmanuel and Another
[2015] SGHC 172 | Decision Date: 1 Jul 2015 | Originating Summons No 1124 of 2014
$10,395.14 which was paid as legal costs to KWP and Harry Elias Partnership who was acting for the CPF Board, a sum of $42,608.83 was left. KWP issued a cheque for $42,608.83 in favour of the second defendant. Together with the initial 10% payment of $25,970, the second defendant received from the plaintiff a total of $68,578.83. The difference between that sum and the purchase price of $259,700 was only $191,121.17. However, as seen from the figures in [13] above, the plaintiff
[Land — Interest in land — Tenancy in common]
PRAKASH DEVI W/O DURGA SINGH v DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH
[2018] SGHC 53 | Decision Date: 26 Mar 2018 | HC/OS 584/2017
pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.Prakash Devi w/o Durga Singh vDevendraPratap Singh[2018] SGHC 53High Court — Originating Summons No584 of 2017Choo Han TeckJ23, 26 February 2018; 22 March 201826 March 2018Judgment reserved.Choo Han Teck J:1This case concerns a dispute between a grandmother and her grandson over a five-room Housing Development Board (“HDB”) flat (“the
[Land - interest in land - tenancy in common]
Toh Tian Sze v Han Kim Wah
[2012] SGHC 111 | Decision Date: 23 May 2012 | Originating Summons No 905 of 2011
metres located at Lorong Tanggam. It is physically divided into two parts roughly equal in area by a wall running approximately in the middle. In each divided half is a detached house. The plaintiff has possession of the house which is assigned the address No45 Lorong Tanggam and the defendant has possession of the house which is assigned No49 Lorong Tanggam. The events leading to the present application for partition may be summarised as
[Arbitration - Award - Recourse against award - Setting aside] [Arbitration - Enforcement - Singapore-seated award - Challenge]
[2021] SGCA 94 | Decision Date: 4 Oct 2021 | CA/CA 98/2020
additional evidence would not have had a material impact on Tribunal’s decision in rendering the Remedies Award.(c)Third, the grant of damages to GGAM NL was not contrary to the public policy of Singapore because: (i) there was no evidence of tax evasion fraud; and (ii) GGAM NL is entitled to the benefits of the Philippines-Netherlands Tax Treaty.Decision below60On 29 May 2020, the Judge delivered judgment on OS 1385 and SUM 6218, dismissing the appellants’ applications to set aside and resist enforcement of the Remedies Award.61First, the Judge rejected the appellants’ argument that the
of natural justice; and (c) that the enforcement of the Remedies Award would be contrary to the public policy of Singapore. On 29 May 2020, the High Court Judge (the “Judge”) dismissed the appellants’ applications. The appellants appealed against the Judge’s decision. The Court of Appeal’s decisionAn arbitral tribunal’s powers6The powers exercisable by an arbitral tribunal may broadly be described as comprising (a) procedural powers; (b) substantive powers; and (c) remedial powers. In particular, an arbitral tribunal’s remedial powers are broad and akin to a court’s powers, as provided for
[Admiralty and Shipping — Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest — Wrongful arrest — Damages for wrongful arrest ] [Admiralty and Shipping — Bills of lading — Bills of Lading Act 1992 — Vesting of rights of suit under the contract of carriage] [Admiralty and Shipping — Bills of lading — Switch bills of lading — Breach of contract — Whether shipowner wrongfully issued switch bills of lading in breach of contract] [Admiralty and Shipping — Bills of lading — Switch bills of lading — Bailment — Whether shipowner as bailee owed trade financing bank duty in bailment — Whether shipowner breached duty as bailee] [Admiralty and Shipping — Bills of lading — Switch bills of lading — Duty of care — Whether shipowner owed trade financing bank duty of care in issuing switch bills of lading — Whether shipowner breached duty of care in agreeing to issue and issuing switch bills of lading]
Owners of or other persons interested in the cargo lately laden on board “JEIL CRYSTAL” (IMO No. 9193587) v Owner of the vessel(s) JEIL CRYSTAL (IMO No. 9193587)
[2024] SGHC 74 | Decision Date: 15 Mar 2024 | HC/ADM 256/2020
In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2024] SGHC 74Admiralty in Rem No 256 of 2020BetweenOwners of or other persons interested in the cargo lately laden onboard “Jeil Crystal”… Plaintiff AndOwner of the vessel “Jeil Crystal”… Defendantjudgment[Admiralty and Shipping — Bills of lading — Bills of Lading Act 1992 — Vesting of rights of suit under the contract of carriage][Admiralty and Shipping — Bills of lading — Switch bills of lading — Breach of contract — Whether shipowner wrongfully issued switch bills of lading in breach of contract][Admiralty and Shipping
[Tort — Detinue] [Contract — Breach] [Tort — Conspiracy] [Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names — Passing off] [Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names — Infringement]
[2023] SGHC 156 | Decision Date: 26 May 2023 | HC/S 600/2020
In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2023] SGHC 156Suit No 600 of 2020 (consolidated with Suit No 96 of 2021)Between1.Dr. Who Waterworks Pte Ltd (formerly known as Cana Services Pte Ltd)2.Dr. Who Global Watertech (S) Pte Ltd3.Dr. Who Laboratories (S) Pte Ltd (formerly known as New Global Fluid Engineering & Machinery Pte Ltd)… Plaintiffs And1.Dr. Who (M) Sdn Bhd2.Oo Tim Wee3.Low Siew Eng4.Dynamic Watermedia Pte Ltd (formerly known as Dr. Who (S) Pte Ltd)… DefendantsAnd Between1.Dr. Who (M) Sdn Bhd2.Oo Tim Wee3.Low Siew Eng4.Dynamic Watermedia Pte Ltd
