Judgment Header
Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and Another [2001] SGHC 19
Loading…
[2001] SGHC 19
General Division of the High Court of Singapore31 Jan 2001Suit 1691/1999
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 10 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
“onestly advance and persist in maintaining a case that she knows to be false. As part of that, she may give evidence at trial that is unsatisfactory (see Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and another [2001] SGHC 19 at [41(o)]). But that is not the claimant’s complaint. Her complaint is about the unsatisfactory quality”
“ek recovery outside jurisdiction, is not a special circumstance warranting a stay: Strandore Invest A/S and others v Soh Kim Wat [2010] SGHC 174 at [13]; Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and Another [2001] SGHC 19 at [64]. The defendants alleged that the plaintiff’s conduct of its business lacked accountability due to”
“In Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and Another [2001] SGHC 19, Chan Seng Onn JC (as he then was) explained the rationale of O 22A r 10 and why compliance had to be strict, and he stated that the costs consequences under O 22A r 9 cannot apply and the court shou”
“) 869 (“Lee Sian Hee”) at [5], which has been cited in Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte Ltd [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1053 at [14] and also in Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and another [2001] SGHC 19 (“Denis Matthew Harte”) at [61]. Yong CJ said in Lee Sian Hee (at [5]) that:”
“indings of fact, since it is for that defendant to determine on the face of the pleadings whether r 10 needs to be complied with in the making of an OTS (Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and Another [2001] SGHC 19)(“Denis Matthew Harte”). In other words, O 22A r 10 is founded upon whether the defendants have been alle”
“The parties also raised the case of Denis Matthew Harte v Dr Tan Hun Hoe & Another [2001] SGHC 19 (“Harte”) during the hearing. There, the court took into account the fact that judgment was not a summary one. It had been granted after a trial of 31 days. On the other hand, the first principle rei”
“liability to the successful defendants, such that the plaintiff was forced to join the successful defendants to the proceedings (see Goh Eng Wah at [41], Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and another [2001] SGHC 19 at [11(c)]). Here, on the respondents’ own case, they would have pursued VMF3 and VMIII regardless, since”
“t to “special circumstances” is a “question of fact in each case” that “must be something distinctive and out of the way” (see the High Court decision of Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and another [2001] SGHC 19 (“Denis”) at [64]). Thus, broadly speaking, a judgment debtor seeking to demonstrate the presence of “spe”
“he trial; (b) plainly unsustainable, unreasonable or unmeritorious issues were put forward and argued at length; and (c) proper disclosure was given: see Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and another [2001] SGHC 19 at [41]. We should add, however, that “[c]osts on an indemnity basis should only be ordered in a special”
“In deciding whether to grant a Sanderson/Bullock order, it has been suggested that the court may take into consideration the following list of factors (Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and another [2001] SGHC 19 at [11]):”
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
Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and Another [2001] SGHC 19
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit 1691/1999
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2001-01-31
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.