In Blomberg, Johan Daniel v Khan Zhi Yan  SGHC 238, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore (per See Kee Oon J) considered the legal principles on when a consent order may be set aside: -.
He distinguished between (a) a “contractual consent order” and an “uncontested consent order”; and (b) a “procedural consent order” and a “substantive consent order”.
In sum, contractual consent orders can only be interfered with on grounds of contract law vitiating factors. The court has no residual discretion to set aside or not enforce substantive contractual consent orders.
Continue reading “Case: Singapore High Court considers when a consent court order may be set aside, distinguishing contractual, uncontested, procedural, and substantive consent orders”
What is Elon Musk doing with this rebranding?
He has renamed Twitter as “X”. That also means its logo will be changed to “X”. And all branding collateral, eg platform & website design and images, will be modified to be consistent with the new brand style.
Continue reading “IP questions about rebranding Twitter to “X” “
Interesting case: Kallivalap Praveen Nair v Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Pte Ltd  SGHC 261
Ex-employee claimed that employer GSK breached its employment contract by failing to follow its own employment policies.
Continue reading “Singapore High Court held employer not obliged to comply with its own employment policies: Kallivalap Praveen Nair v Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Pte Ltd  SGHC 261”
Significance: in Adip Mittal v Offshore Holding Company Pte Ltd  SGHC 239, the General Division of the Singapore High Court (coram Goh Yihan JC) considered, in the first reported decision on this issue, the legal principles applicable to s 124(1)(b) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA), which allows directors to wind up companies. Prior to the IRDA, directors had no legal standing to wind up companies.
Continue reading “Directors winding up companies under Singapore’s IRDA”
Significance: the General Division of the Singapore High Court in JSD Corp Pte Ltd v Tri-Line Express Pte Ltd  SGHC 227 (coram: Goh Yihan JC) clarified that a claimant’s intention to repair will be a very significant factor in the court’s assessment on whether to grant cost of cure damages in claims of breach of contract or negligent damage to property.
Continue reading “SGHC on intention to repair in cost of cure damages claims”
Powercom Yuraku Pte Ltd v Sunpower Semiconductor Ltd  SGHC 211
Significance: This is the first time the Singapore court explained the legal basis on which: (a) a judgment granted in default of defence can be set aside in part; and (b) declarations can be made in default of defence or on admission or by consent. Goh Yihan JC explains in this judgment.
Continue reading “Case: Singapore High Court grants declaratory judgment in default and varies default judgment in part”
Maybank Singapore Limited v Personal representatives of the estate of Khoo Gek Hwa Christina, deceased  SGHCR 7
Significance: The Assistant Registrar set out practical guidance on the procedure for starting a suit against a deceased’s estate at :
Continue reading “Case:  SGHCR 7 – procedural considerations regarding starting a suit against estate”
Significant decision by the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore: POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng  SGHC(A) 2
The Court held that a special purpose vehicle (SPV) who was assigned the claims of various investors who alleged fraud has locus standi to pursue the claims.
Continue reading “Case: POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng  SGHC(A) 2 – Special Purpose Vehicle assigned claims has locus standi”
Businesses (creditors) who wish to make a claim against another business (debtors) for a debt arising from contract should follow the State Courts’ pre-action protocol for business-to-business debt claims (the “Protocol“).
A creditor must comply with the framework in the Protocol before commencing any lawsuit in the State Courts.
A debtor must respond to a letter of claim within 14 days of receipt (or the timeline in the letter if earlier).
The Protocol stipulates certain material information and documents which must be provided by the creditor in the letter of claim or the debtor in the response to a letter of claim.
If either the creditor or debtor requests a document or information, the other party must within 14 days of receiving the request provide the document or information sought, or explain why the document or information sought is unavailable.
If you wish to engage me to assist with preparing a letter of demand for your business debt claim, please complete this Google form. (Google account log-in required for file upload.)
Alternatively, if you wish to engage a Singapore lawyer to assist with preparing a response to a letter of claim for business debt, including a counterclaim, you may contact me here.
Continue reading “Business Debt Claims”
Being sued in court is a severe business. If you are not prompt and diligent about handling the case properly, it may be very hard, costly, and time-consuming to defend or vindicate yourself later on.
In this article, I discuss frequently asked questions about being sued in a civil litigation case in the Singapore court.
Continue reading “Article: What to do if I am sued in the Singapore court?”