Peremptory orders
Peremptory orders is a specialized practice area in Singapore's legal system. This area encompasses 10 cases from 2003 to 2024.
Leading Law Firms
Analysis of law firms specializing in Peremptory orders, ranked by case volume and success rates.
Law Firm | Cases |
---|---|
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP33.33% success rate | 3 cases30.0% of area |
Allen & Gledhill LLP50.00% success rate | 2 cases20.0% of area |
Attorney-General’s Chambers0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
LVM Law Chambers LLC100.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Damodara Ong LLC0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Breakpoint LLC100.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Bird & Bird ATMD LLP0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Oon & Bazul LLP0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Genesis Law Corporation0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Robert Wang & Woo LLP100.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Notable Lawyers
Leading lawyers practicing in Peremptory orders, ranked by case volume and success rates.
Lawyer | Cases |
---|---|
Devathas Satianathan50.00% success rate | 2 cases20.0% of area |
Kelvin Poon0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Low Zhe Ning0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Tay Yong Seng100.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Ong Ziying Clement0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Ning Jie0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Ng Shu Wen100.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Kok Jia An Alwyn100.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Gregory Vijayendran0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Anparasan s/o Kamachi100.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Recent Judgments
Displaying 10 most recent judgments out of 10 total cases
No. | Title | Court | Decision Date | Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | DFD v DFE: Disclosure of Documents and Peremptory Orders in International Arbitration Enforcement | General Division of the High Court | 29 Feb 2024 | SUM 2987 allowed in part; SUM 346 granted with modified conditions. |
2 | Golden Pacific Shipping v Arc Marine Engineering: Negligence & Bailment in Ship Repair | High Court of the Republic of Singapore | 18 Jan 2024 | Plaintiff's claim dismissed |
3 | Yap Kian Sing v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Drug Trafficking Sentence | General Division of the High Court | 10 Dec 2023 | Appeal Allowed in Part |
4 | ICOP Construction v. Tiong Seng: Microtunnelling Dispute over Contract Termination and Delay Claims | General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore | 11 Oct 2022 | Judgment partially for Plaintiff, ICOP Construction, and partially for Defendant, Tiong Seng Civil Engineering; Quantum Hearing ordered. |
5 | - | 29 Aug 2022 | Unknown | |
6 | Pilgrim v Asian Appraisal: Negligence in Asset Valuation and Loan Security | General Division of the High Court | 16 Jan 2022 | Plaintiff's claims dismissed. |
7 | Sai Wan Shipping v Landmark Line: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Breach of Natural Justice | General Division of the High Court | 13 Jan 2022 | Order granted setting aside the entire second award, pursuant to s 24(b) of the IAA and Art 34(2)(a)(ii) of the Model Law. |
8 | CJY v CJZ: Stay of Court Proceedings Pending Arbitration Over Wrongful Performance Bond Calls and Construction Defects | General Division of the High Court | 22 Mar 2021 | Case management stay granted, suit stayed pending the determination of the arbitration. |
9 | Tan Yeow Hiang Kenneth v Tan Chor Chuan: Review of Costs in Defamation Action | High Court | 09 Nov 2005 | The court decided that it did not have the power to allow a further reduction on account of the failed defenses. The court also decided that, even if it were open to it to grant a reduction, no reduction ought to be allowed. |
10 | Elan Impex v Daewoo: Wrongful Termination, Service Out of Jurisdiction, and Forum Non Conveniens | High Court | 07 Feb 2003 | Action against the first defendant and fourth defendant struck out; orders giving leave to serve outside jurisdiction set aside; interim injunctions discharged; claim against the third defendant and the Mareva injunction against him stayed. |