Case Update: Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v DealStreetAsia Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 74 – pre-action interrogatories and pre-action discovery allowed

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v DealStreetAsia Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 74

Significance: Singapore High Court allows pre-action interrogatories and pre-action discovery under Order 26A and Order 24 of the Rules of Court. The Court found that it was just and necessary in all the circumstances to grant the pre-action disclosure sought by the plaintiff; it was held to be entitled to a disclosure of facts sufficient to give it a reasonable basis upon which to form a view on whether it can plead a viable case (in this case of malicious falsehood). However, the Court disallowed pre-actiion interrogatories and discovery for information regarding certain third parties who were alleged sources of information regarding an allegedly maliciously false news article on a website. The Court found that there was insufficient basis for a real possibility that the plaintiff would bring a claim against these third parties in Singapore for malicious falsehood (a Singapore nexus being required).

Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu and another [2016] SGHCR 8 – HC AR holds Chinese judicial settlement enforceable

Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu and another [2016] SGHCR 8 – AR holds that PRC judicial settlement enforceable not as a foreign judgment but an agreement

Significance: An AR exercising powers as a High Court judge held that a mediation paper / judicial settlement made in Chinese proceedings pursuant to a settlement could be enforced in the Singapore court not as a foreign judgment based on the application of the laws of China, but an agreement under the common law.

Legislative Update: Choice of Court Agreements Bill

Legislative Update: Choice of Court Agreements Bill

The Choice of Court Agreements Bill (Bill No. 14/2016) was introduced in the Singapore Parliament on 4 April 2016. This Bill enables Singapore to give effect to the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements done at The Hague on 30 June 2005 (the Convention). The Convention establishes an international legal regime for enforcing an exclusive choice of court agreement concluded in a civil or commercial matter in an international case, and provides for the recognition and enforcement of any foreign judgment given by, and the enforcement of any judicial settlement approved by or concluded before, a court of a Contracting State designated in an exclusive choice of court agreement.

Continue reading “Legislative Update: Choice of Court Agreements Bill”

Case Update: Peh Yeng Yok v Tembusu Systems Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 36 – search order / anton piller order set aside

Peh Yeng Yok v Tembusu Systems Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 36

[14]: A search order is a draconian measure and will only be granted if necessary in the interests of justice. In line with this overriding principle of necessity, a plaintiff applying for a search order must show that:

(a) there is an extremely strong prima facie case;
(b) the damage that would be suffered if a search order was not granted is very serious;
(c) there is a real possibility that the defendant(s) would destroy relevant documents; and
(d) the effect of the search order would not be out of proportion to the legitimate object of the order.

See Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2006] 1 SLR(R) 901 (“Asian Corporate Services”) at [14].

Continue reading “Case Update: Peh Yeng Yok v Tembusu Systems Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 36 – search order / anton piller order set aside”

Case Update: Accent Delight International Ltd v Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar [2016] SGHC 40 – forum non conveniens; non-availability of substantive claims under foreign law

Accent Delight International Ltd v Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar [2016] SGHC 40

Significance: High Court held on application of Spiliada principles and the doctrine of forum non conveniens that Singapore proceedings should not be stayed in favour of Switzerland because, among other reasons, the plaintiffs may not be able to pursue their substantive claims under Swiss law. The Court also considered that the purported disadvantages of having the dispute determined in Singapore are neutralised by having the dispute heard in the Singapore International Commercial Court.

Continue reading “Case Update: Accent Delight International Ltd v Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar [2016] SGHC 40 – forum non conveniens; non-availability of substantive claims under foreign law”

Case Update: La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG [2016] SGHC 3 – SGHC orders pre-action discovery against banks to disclose customer account information

Significance: Singapore High Court orders banks to disclose customer account information to plaintiffs in respect of the plaintiffs’ claims against the banks’ customer in an application for pre-action discovery under O 24 r 6(5) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction (i.e. a Norwich Pharmacal order).

Continue reading “Case Update: La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG [2016] SGHC 3 – SGHC orders pre-action discovery against banks to disclose customer account information”

Case Update: Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao [2016] SGCA 8 – SGCA orders 8 months’ prison for husband who defied court orders in civil / divorce case

Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao [2016] SGCA 8

Significance: Court of Appeal orders a party in a civil not criminal case (divorce proceedings: division of matrimonial assets) to 8 months’ imprisonment for defying court orders, being liable for civil contempt of court. The Court set out helpful legal principles and guidelines on committal proceedings for civil contempt of court.

Continue reading “Case Update: Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao [2016] SGCA 8 – SGCA orders 8 months’ prison for husband who defied court orders in civil / divorce case”

Case Update: SIC College of Business and Technology Pte Ltd v Yeo Poh Siah and others [2016] SGCA 5 – CA orders retrial as evidence was wrongly rejected; costs against non-party; security for costs

SIC College of Business and Technology Pte Ltd v Yeo Poh Siah and others [2016] SGCA 5

Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal orders retrial of an action because the trial judge had wrongly rejected certain key evidence from being admitted for purposes of the counterclaim because it was brought for purposes of the main claim, which had been dismissed.

Significance (2): Singapore Court of Appeal opined that order for security for costs against plaintiff company may not have been justifiable.

Significance (3): Singapore Court of Appeal held that lower court’s order for non-party to pay costs of the proceedings was wrong.

Court Room Trial of Four British Seamen at Canton

Continue reading “Case Update: SIC College of Business and Technology Pte Ltd v Yeo Poh Siah and others [2016] SGCA 5 – CA orders retrial as evidence was wrongly rejected; costs against non-party; security for costs”

Article: How to Sue Someone? 

People often ask, how do you sue someone? That’s a challenging question for a litigation lawyer. It’s like asking a chef, how do you cook food? Oh, and litigation means suing or being sued in a court of law. I tell people I do litigation work and they say, oh so not commercial work? That’s a senseless statement because I do commercial litigation. So anyway, here’s the lowdown on how to sue someone.
Supreme Court of Singapore

Continue reading “Article: How to Sue Someone? “