Case: Sandy Island Pte Ltd v Thio Keng Thay [2020] SGCA 86 – defects liability clause does not extinguish rights to claim damages in common law

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal held that unless there are clear words or strong implication from express words in the contract, a defects liability clause in a property construction or development contract does not cause the owner/employer to lose its right to claim damages at common law for defects.

Continue reading “Case: Sandy Island Pte Ltd v Thio Keng Thay [2020] SGCA 86 – defects liability clause does not extinguish rights to claim damages in common law”

Original Song: Kingfisher lyrics

Kingfisher by Ronald JJ Wong

In an uncertain time of lockdowns, social disconnection, virus contagion, and economic troubles, to live at all is a daunting challenge. To give life and raise a child in such times is a frightful responsibility. This song is a love letter from me as a parent to my firstborn child to not only survive, but to thrive, by living courageously on the power of hope, faith, and love. 

Listen to the song at the platforms found here.

Continue reading “Original Song: Kingfisher lyrics”

Case: Public Prosecutor v Jurong Country Club and another appeal [2019] SGHC 150 – High Court considers factors to determine whether employee or independent contractor

Significance: Singapore High Court considers factors to determine whether a person was engaged as an employee or independent contractor for purposes of the Central Provident Fund Act (CPFA).

Continue reading “Case: Public Prosecutor v Jurong Country Club and another appeal [2019] SGHC 150 – High Court considers factors to determine whether employee or independent contractor”

Case: Timing Ltd v Tay Toh Hin [2020] SGHC 169 – High Court holds that joint bank account may be garnished

Significance: Singapore High Court held that a joint bank account may be subject to a garnishee order under Order 49 of the Rules of Court. Where there is a strong prima facie basis for concluding that all the moneys in a joint account belong to the judgment debtor, the joint account can be garnished, subject to certain requirements.

Continue reading “Case: Timing Ltd v Tay Toh Hin [2020] SGHC 169 – High Court holds that joint bank account may be garnished”

Case: Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and another v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 76 – multifactorial balancing for lifting Riddick principle; guidance on search orders (Anton Piller)

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and another v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 76

Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal held that a multifactorial balancing exercise is to be adopted in determining whether a party ought to be released from its Riddick undertaking not to use documents ordered to be disclosed in civil proceedings for collateral purposes. The previous two-step test in Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG [2005] 3 SLR(R) 555, viz. inter alia prejudice as overriding factor, is not to be applied.

Search orders (or Anton Piller orders) should be targeted and specific in their reach; the breadth of search orders should be carefully calibrated to meet the needs of the discovering party only, and no further.

Continue reading “Case: Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and another v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 76 – multifactorial balancing for lifting Riddick principle; guidance on search orders (Anton Piller)”

Case: Ang Chek Chin v ANS Import & Export Pte Ltd (formerly known as Ang Ngee Seng Import & Export Pte Ltd) [2020] SGHC 177 – who has right to be heard in winding up application

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Ang Chek Chin v ANS Import & Export Pte Ltd (formerly known as Ang Ngee Seng Import & Export Pte Ltd) [2020] SGHC 177

(Coram: Audrey Lim J)

Significance: Generally, a person who is not of the class of persons (company, creditor, contributory, official receiver or liquidator) should not be allowed to appear to be heard on the application to wind up the company. However, in appropriate circumstances, a person who would be directly affected by a winding up order may have the right to be added as a party to the proceedings.

S 285 of the Companies Act to summon a person is not meant for the purpose of determining whether a winding up should be granted but predicated on a winding up order made or provisional liquidator being appointed. The proper procedure for summoning witnesses is in s 257(2) of the CA, which allows the court on a winding up application to do certain things including directing a trial and directing that oral evidence be taken.

Continue reading “Case: Ang Chek Chin v ANS Import & Export Pte Ltd (formerly known as Ang Ngee Seng Import & Export Pte Ltd) [2020] SGHC 177 – who has right to be heard in winding up application”