Judgment Header
AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals [2015] SGCA 18
Loading…
[2015] SGCA 18
Court of Appeal of Singapore31 Mar 2015Civil Appeals Nos [P], [Q] and [R]
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 17 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“entitled to know about and test the evidence led against him. [emphasis added]” (emphasis added). [27] See also the recent Singapore Court of Appeal case of AKN & Anor v ALC & Ors, and other appeals [2015] SGCA 18. [28] Learned counsel for Garden Bay argued that Sime Darby's counterclaim for the alleged costs of rectif”
“was severely limited.” (emphasis added). [71] In another decision by our southern neighbour, the Chief Justice of Singapore, Menon CJ, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in AKN v ALC [2015] SGCA 18 and cautioning the courts against attempts by ingenious counsels to disguise what is substantially an appea”
“Hall Ltd & Leonard Pipeline Contractors [1978] VR 385; L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appeal [2013] 1 SLR 125; and AKN & Anor v ALC & Ors and other appeals [2015] SGCA 18. [44] Soh Beng Tee; Petronas Penapisan (Melaka); and the leading case on the meaning of the phrase “the aw”
“MLJ 597 Anas Construction Sdn Bhd v JKP Sdn Bhd [2024] 2 MLJ 543 CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara [2011] SGCA 3 Master Mulia Sdn Bhd v Sigur Rus Sdn Bhd [2020] 12 MLJ 198 AKN v ALC [2015] SGCA 18 Jan De Nul (M) Sdn Bhd v Vincent Tan Chee Yioun [2019] 2 MLJ 413 Saiman bin Umar v Lembaga Pertubuhan Peladang”
“ent to set aside an award for breach of the rules of natural justice.” [22] The Chief Justice of Singapore, Menon CJ, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in AKN v ALC [2015] 3 SLR 488; [2015] SGCA 18 cautioned the courts against attempts by ingenious counsels to disguise what is substantially an appeal on”
“ent to set aside an award for breach of the rules of natural justice.” [22] The Chief Justice of Singapore, Menon CJ, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in AKN v ALC [2015] 3 SLR 488; [2015] SGCA 18 cautioned the courts against attempts by ingenious counsels to disguise what is substantially an appeal on”
“uisite or requirement to set aside an award for breach of the rules of natural justice.” [18] In Singapore, Menon CJ, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in AKN v ALC [2015] 3 SLR 488; [2015] SGCA 18 cautioned the courts against attempts by ingenious counsels to disguise what is substantially an appeal on”
“uisite or requirement to set aside an award for breach of the rules of natural justice.” [18] In Singapore, Menon CJ, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in AKN v ALC [2015] 3 SLR 488; [2015] SGCA 18 cautioned the courts against attempts by ingenious counsels to disguise what is substantially an appeal on”
“e losing party in arbitration is not entitled to relitigate. In this regard, the Chief Justice of Singapore, Menon CJ, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in AKN v ALC [2015] 3 SLR 488; [2015] SGCA 18 at [39] cautioned the courts against attempts by ingenious counsel to disguise what is substantially an a”
“[2014] 4 CLJ 525 S/N 204gfNlprEG2b2DJcHsAmw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 53 AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals [2015] SGCA 18 Bauer (M) Sdn Bhd v Embassy Court Sdn Bhd [2010] MLJU 1323 Brunsfield Project Management Sdn Bhd v Ingeniur B”
“award unless such a breach has caused prejudice to a plaintiff." The two decisions being Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmont Development Pte Ltd [supra] and AKN & Anor v ALC & Ors, and other appeals [2015] SGCA 18. In Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmont Development Pte Ltd, VK Rajah JA had held as follows:”
“50470 Kuala Lumpur Cases, legislation and other sources referred to in the submissions by learned counsels and in the Grounds of Judgment: Cases: AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals [2015] SGCA 18 Andrew Chioh Eng Hua & Anor v Kewangan Utama Berhad [1998] 4 AMR 3651 @ [1998] MLJU 302 Asia Commercial Fina”
“50470 Kuala Lumpur Cases, legislation and other sources referred to in the submissions by learned counsels and in the Grounds of Judgment: Cases: AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals [2015] SGCA 18 Andrew Chioh Eng Hua & Anor v Kewangan Utama Berhad [1998] 4 AMR 3651 @ [1998] MLJU 302 Asia Commercial Fina”
“used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 “[22] The Chief Justice of Singapore, Menon CJ, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in AKN v ALC [2015] 3 SLR 488; [2015] SGCA 18 cautioned the courts against attempts by ingenious counsels to disguise what is substantially an appeal on”
“used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 “[22] The Chief Justice of Singapore, Menon CJ, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in AKN v ALC [2015] 3 SLR 488; [2015] SGCA 18 cautioned the courts against attempts by ingenious counsels to disguise what is substantially an appeal on”
“etting aside an award for ‘error on the face of the award’ no longer exists” (The Arbitration Act supra at 8.23(b)).” [emphasis added] b) AKN and another v. AKL and others and another appeals [2015] SGCA 18 where at para [73] the learned Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon held: 73 In CRW, we noted (at [33]) the distinction”
“etting aside an award for ‘error on the face of the award’ no longer exists” (The Arbitration Act supra at 8.23(b)).” [emphasis added] b) AKN and another v. AKL and others and another appeals [2015] SGCA 18 where at para [73] the learned Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon held: 73 In CRW, we noted (at [33]) the distinction”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals [2015] SGCA 18
Case Metadata
Case No: Civil Appeals Nos [P], [Q] and [R]
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-03-31
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.