Judgment Header
Chin Bay Ching v Merchant Ventures Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 29
Court DecisionSGCA
[2005] SGCA 29
[2005] SGCA 29
Court of Appeal of Singapore17 May 2005CA 86/2004
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 3 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
3Later cases and laws citing this decision
“rawal or correction of an offending statement. On this question, we find ourselves in agreement with the views expressed by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Chin Bay Ching v Merchant Ventures Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 29 where it was held at para 25: We recognise the force of the argument that a defendant should not be compe”
“will. They rely heavily on Credit Guarantee Corp Malaysia Bhd v SSN Medical Products Sdn Bhd [2017] 2 MLJ 629 and the Singapore Court of Appeal decision in Chin Bay Ching v Merchant Ventures Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 29 to contend that because an apology is intrinsically a volitional act of contrition, it lies beyond the coe”
“SSN Medical Products Sdn Bhd [2017] 2 MLJ 629, Harminder Singh JCA (as he then was) at para [70] and [71], referred to the Singapore Court of Appeal case of Chin Bay Ching v Merchant Ventures Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 29 and held that an apology by its very nature should be voluntary and cannot be compelled: “[70] In this re”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: CA 86/2004
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2005-05-17
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.