Singapore Court Judgments
Showing 10 of 9,503 judgments
City Spark v The Outdoor Recreation Group: Forum Non Conveniens in Defamation Claim
In City Spark (Singapore) Pte Ltd v The Outdoor Recreation Group, LLC and another, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the defendants' appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision to dismiss their application for a stay of proceedings based on forum non conveniens. City Spark Singapore initiated a defamation claim against The Outdoor Recreation Group, LLC and Andrew Altshule. The court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, found that the defendants did not discharge their burden of proving that the United States was a clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum and dismissed the appeal with costs. The court determined that Singapore has the most real and substantial connection with the case.
WXD v WXC: Appeals on Matrimonial Asset Division in Divorce
In WXD v WXC, the High Court (Family Division) heard appeals from both the husband (WXD) and the wife (WXC) against the District Judge's decision on ancillary matters in their divorce, specifically regarding the identification and division of matrimonial assets. The court partially allowed the husband's appeal, adjusting the ratio of direct financial contributions to the matrimonial pool of assets. The court dismissed the wife's appeal.
Hamzah bin Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review Application for Drug Trafficking
Hamzah bin Ibrahim applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 14 February 2025 for permission to make a review application against his conviction and sentence for drug trafficking. He was originally convicted in the High Court along with Muhammad Farid bin Sudi and Tika Pesik. Hamzah's appeal against his sentence was dismissed on 20 August 2018. The Court of Appeal, in this judgment delivered by Tay Yong Kwang JCA, dismissed Hamzah's application, finding no basis to conclude that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences: Worldwide Mareva Injunction for New York Arbitration
In [2025] SGHC(I) 3, Novo Nordisk A/S applied ex parte to the Singapore International Commercial Court for a worldwide freezing order against KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. and Huang Zhenhua in support of a New York-seated arbitration. Novo claimed it was misled into acquiring Ocedurenone under an Asset Purchase Agreement. Philip Jeyaretnam J granted the worldwide freezing order and ancillary disclosure orders, finding a good arguable case for fraud and a real risk of asset dissipation. The application for confidentiality orders was denied, and costs were reserved.
XHG v XHH: Costs Order in Divorce Ancillary Matters | Family Law
In the Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore, Choo Han Teck J ordered the husband, XHH, to pay costs to the wife, XHG, in relation to ancillary matters of their divorce. The court awarded standard costs of S$5,000 for the ancillary proceedings and indemnity costs of S$2,000 for the wife's costs of responding to the husband's late affidavit of assets and means. The court considered the wife's offer to settle, the husband's conduct during the proceedings, and the parties' disclosure obligations.
Wan Sern Metal Industries v Hua Tian Engineering: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Breach of Natural Justice
In Wan Sern Metal Industries Pte Ltd v Hua Tian Engineering Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal against a High Court decision dismissing Wan Sern's application to set aside an arbitral award. The arbitration, seated in Singapore and administered by the SIAC, concerned a construction project dispute. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the arbitrator breached natural justice by failing to properly consider an unpleaded claim related to the balance work counterclaim. The court set aside the award insofar as it concerned the balance work counterclaim.
FXA Investment Holdings v Tan Wei Cheong: Proof of Debt in Liquidation & Lease Termination
FXA Investment Holdings Pte Ltd ("FXA") applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 18 October 2024 to reverse the decision of the liquidators of Fusionex Pte Ltd ("Company"), Tan Wei Cheong and Lim Loo Khoon, to reject FXA's proof of debt. FXA claimed the Company owed them $270,057.40 for outstanding rent, service charges, and an agency fee related to a sub-lease agreement. The court, presided over by Audrey Lim J, found that a sub-lease and a 'Gentlemen's Agreement' existed between FXA and the Company. The court allowed the application in part, directing the liquidators to accept the proof of debt for $110,701.54 for rent and service charges up to 7 March 2024, and $49,582.19 for the agency fee.
Ee Hup Construction v China Jingye: Performance Bond Call & Unconscionability
Ee Hup Construction Pte Ltd appealed against the High Court's decision in HC/OA 426/2024, which partially allowed their application for an injunction against China Jingye Engineering Corporation Limited's call on a performance bond issued by India International Insurance Pte Ltd. The Appellate Division of the High Court, comprising Tay Yong Kwang JCA, See Kee Oon JAD, and Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi J, dismissed the appeal, finding no unconscionability in China Jingye's call on the bond. The court ordered Ee Hup Construction to pay costs to China Jingye.
Oh Hin Kwan Gilbert v Public Prosecutor: False Information to Public Servant
Oh Hin Kwan Gilbert appealed against a one-week imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Judge for providing false information to the Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, an offence under Section 182 of the Penal Code. Oh Hin Kwan Gilbert had falsely stated that luxury watches belonged to his father to avoid scrutiny regarding the misuse of the diplomatic bag service. The High Court, presided over by Justice Dedar Singh Gill, dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence.
WVZ v WVY: Cross Appeals on Custody, Care and Control of Children and Division of Matrimonial Assets
In a family law case before the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) of Singapore, WVZ (the Husband) and WVY (the Wife) filed cross-appeals against the District Judge's decision on ancillary matters following their divorce. The primary issues were the care and control of their two children and the division of matrimonial assets, including the matrimonial home and properties in China. The court dismissed the Husband's appeal in its entirety and granted the Wife's appeal, adjusting the valuation of matrimonial assets.