Judgment Header
Arubugam Suppiah v Curt Evert Borgensten [2001] SGHC 199
Court DecisionSGHC
[2001] SGHC 199
[2001] SGHC 199
General Division of the High Court of Singapore25 Jul 2001OS 600167/2001, SIC 600944/2001
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 2 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
2Later cases and laws citing this decision
“fidavits, but eventually complied after a number of weeks. They were each fined for their contempt. It bore little factual resemblance to the present case. In Arubugam Suppiah v Curt Evert Borgensten [2001] SGHC 199 (“Arubugam Suppiah”) cited by the Plaintiff’s Counsel for distinction, the defendant failed to attend fi”
“m. The committal respondents submit that this is a significant mitigating factor. They rely on Tahir v Tay Kar Oon [2016] 3 SLR 296 at [60], which referred to Arubugam Suppiah v Curt Evert Borgensten [2001] SGHC 199 (“Arubugam”). In Arubugam at [131], Woo Bih Li JC (as he then was), took into account that the committal”
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: OS 600167/2001, SIC 600944/2001
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2001-07-25
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Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.