Judgment Header
Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo and another [2014] SGCA 28
Court DecisionSGCA
[2014] SGCA 28
[2014] SGCA 28
Court of Appeal of Singapore26 May 2014Civil Appeal No 121 of 2013
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 15 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
15Later cases and laws citing this decision
“actors are not utilised in a mechanistic and rigid fashion but considered holistically and given weight in accordance with the facts of the particular case. (See Ting Siew May v. Boon Lay Choo & Anor [2014] SGCA 28, Ochroid Trading Ltd & Anor v. Chua Siok Lui [2018] SGCA 5 and Patel).” 64. After considering the facts b”
“actors are not utilised in a mechanistic and rigid fashion but considered holistically and given weight in accordance with the facts of the particular case. (See Ting Siew May v. Boon Lay Choo & Anor [2014] SGCA 28, Ochroid Trading Ltd & Anor v. Chua Siok Lui [2018] SGCA 5 and Patel).” 64. After considering the facts b”
“actors are not utilised in a mechanistic and rigid fashion but considered holistically and given weight in accordance with the facts of the particular case. (See Ting Siew May v. Boon Lay Choo & Anor [2014] SGCA 28, Ochroid Trading Ltd & Anor v. Chua Siok Lui [2018] SGCA 5 and Patel).” 64. After considering the facts b”
“red relatively “trivial”. Thus, these types of contracts would be judged on the principle of proportionality. Under this principle, as stated by the Court in Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo and another [2014] SGCA 28 (at Tab-17), the Court will consider the circumstances surrounding the illegality, such as the nature and”
“ding the reliefs sought by parties to an illegal transaction. On this point, in particular with regard to the principle of proportionality, reference is also made to the Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo [2014] SGCA 28, and ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2013] 2 WLR 939. For these reasons, the Court cannot assist”
Show 10 moreShow fewer
“echnical and complex, and many have tripped over when determining the effect of alleged illegality in any Agreement. This was stated by the Supreme Court in Singapore in Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo [2014] SGCA 28 where Andrew Pang JA stated: - “ 33. It bears repeating that the law relating to illegality and public po”
“ar and Singh v Ali [1960] MLJ 52, does not admit of such a principle.” [53] Even then, we note with interest that the law in Singapore in this regard has moved on. In Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo [2014] SGCA 28 (“Ting”), the Singapore Court of Appeal held that for contracts entered into with an illegal or unlawful obj”
“rs are not utilised in a mechanistic and rigid fashion but considered holistically and given weight in accordance with the facts of the particular case. (See Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo and Another [2014] SGCA 28, Ochroid Trading Limited (formerly known as OrionTrading Limited) & Anor v Chua Siok Lui & Anor [2018] SG”
“rs are not utilised in a mechanistic and rigid fashion but considered holistically and given weight in accordance with the facts of the particular case. (See Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo and Another [2014] SGCA 28, Ochroid Trading Limited (formerly known as OrionTrading Limited) & Anor v Chua Siok Lui & Anor [2018] SG”
“ding the reliefs sought by parties to an illegal transaction. On this point, in particular with regard to the principle of proportionality, reference is also made to the Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo [2014] SGCA 28, and ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2013] 2 WLR”
“ding the reliefs sought by parties to an illegal transaction. On this point, in particular with regard to the principle of proportionality, reference is also made to the Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo [2014] SGCA 28, and ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2013] 2 WLR”
“ding the reliefs sought by parties to an illegal transaction. On this point, in particular with regard to the principle of proportionality, reference is also made to the Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo [2014] SGCA 28, and ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2013] 2 WLR”
“actors are not utilised in a mechanistic and rigid fashion but considered holistically and given weight in accordance with the facts of the particular case. (See Ting Siew May v. Boon Lay Choo & Anor [2014] SGCA 28, Ochroid Trading Ltd & Anor v. Chua Siok Lui [2018] SGCA 5 and Patel). [47] We applied the Detik Ria Guid”
“cordance with the facts of the particular case. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 113 [See Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo and another [2014] SGCA 28, Ochroid Trading V Chua Siok Lui [2018] SGCA 5 and Patel] [156] In formulating these guidelines, we have exa”
- Followed1. ) FALCONER CHESTER HALL (UK) LIMITED v 1. ) LFE ENGINEERING SDN BHD (WA-22C-80-10/2019)Case
“Sdn Bhd (No 2) [1997] 2 MLJ 829 and Datuk Tan Leng Teck v Sarjana Sdn Bhd & Ors [1997] 4 MLJ 329).” (emphasis added) [58] Furthermore in the Singapore case of Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo & Another [2014] SGCA 28, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA held as follows: “103 A second source of difficulty in relation to the law rel”
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: Civil Appeal No 121 of 2013
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2014-05-26
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.