Judgment Header
Rockline Ltd and Others v Anil Thadani and Others [2009] SGHC 209
Loading…
[2009] SGHC 209
General Division of the High Court of Singapore17 Sept 2009Suit 375/2007, SUM 4794/2009
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 7 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
“The second case is the decision of Choo Han Teck J in Rockline Ltd and others v Anil Thadani and others [2009] SGHC 209 where a similar view was expressed, albeit with the gloss at [2] that the court in a criminal case is likely to be stricter when exercising its discretion in admitting similar fact evidence.”
“e against her character in previous court proceedings. This directly contradicts the rationale behind s 54 of the EA. As Choo Han Teck J explained in Rockline Ltd and others v Anil Thadani and others [2009] SGHC 209 at [2]:”
“Indeed, the rationale behind s 54 of the EA has been explained by the High Court in Rockline Ltd and others v Anil Thadani and others [2009] SGHC 209 at [2]:”
“ore (Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd Ed, 2022) at para 5.017 citing Hin Hup Bus Service (a firm) v Tay Chwee Hiang and Another [2006] 4 SLR(R) 723 at [34]–[38], Rockline Ltd and Others v Anil Thadani and Others [2009] SGHC 209 at [2]):”
“iamond at [14]). It has also been held that “assertions of dishonesty or impropriety are not scandalous if they are relevant to the issues at trial” (Rockline Ltd and others v Anil Thadani and others [2009] SGHC 209 at [2]).”
“Zanelle v Royal Amulet Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 205 at [38]. Generally, assertions of dishonesty or impropriety are not scandalous if they are relevant to the issues at trial: Rockline Ltd v Anil Thadani [2009] SGHC 209 at [2].”
“Although most of the cases pertaining to similar fact evidence were decided in the criminal context, Rockline Ltd and others v Anil Thadani and others [2009] SGHC 209 (“Rockline”) explains that the principle can equally apply to the civil context with some minor modifications. In Rockline, Choo Han Teck J agreed with L”
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
Rockline Ltd and Others v Anil Thadani and Others [2009] SGHC 209
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit 375/2007, SUM 4794/2009
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2009-09-17
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.