Judgment Header
AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260
Loading…
[2009] SGHC 260
General Division of the High Court of Singapore23 Nov 2009OS 296/2009, RA 191/2009
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 22 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
“nanced under section 15 CIPAA and this is not an appeal. [113] Mr Siva for ARMC had referred to the Singapore case of Am Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country 55 Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260, where Judith Prakash J, in a similar context, made this cautionary note: “23. There are two rules of nat”
“ice. It is singularly devoid of merits and will not be entertained by the Courts. 21 [46] I recall the Singapore case of Am Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260, and the dicta Judith Prakash J, in a context not dissimilar to ours: “23. There are two rules of natural”
“conclude that he had not acted impartially or independently. [55] The dicta of Judith Prakash J. in the Singapore case of Am Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260, in a context not dissimilar to ours, is illuminating and is set out below: “23. There are two rules of”
“ering & Construction Co Ltd [2010] 1 SLR 658, SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd [2010] 1 SLR 733 and AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National 45 Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260, all decided by Judith Prakash J. In Chip Hup Hup Kee, Prakash J held that the formal validity and service”
“gineering & Construction Co. Ltd [2010] 1 SLR 658, SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd [2010] 1 SLR 733 and AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260, all decided by Judith Prakash J. on the one hand and that of Sungdo Engineering & Construction (S) Pte”
“ld be heard; it does not require that they be given responses and determinations on all submissions made. See the case of AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260. Whether the Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction when he decided on a lesser sum admitte”
“justice. It is singularly devoid of merits and will not be entertained by the Courts. [46] I recall the Singapore case of Am Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260, and the dicta Judith Prakash J, in a context not dissimilar to ours: “23. There are two rules of natura”
“aimant’s Affidavit in Reply for the Enforcement Application). See ACFM Engineering case (supra) and the Singapore case of AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260. [49] Even if one looks at breach of natural justice from the point of view of a failure to consider a d”
“the Adjudicator to make a decision in favour of a particular party before the Adjudicator. See the 25 Singapore case of AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260. [49] Procedurally he needs to consider the evidence and submissions of both sides and then decide with so”
“tion Claim and Adjudication Response and if need be an Adjudication Reply after that… [46] I recall the Singapore case of Am Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260, and the dicta Judith Prakash J, in a context not dissimilar to ours: "23. There are two rules of natura”
“d by Gazzriz Sdn Bhd v Hasrat Gemilang Sdn Bhd and another case [2016] 1 LNS 1280 with reference to the Singapore case of AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260- “The principles of natural justice are concerned with the provison of a fair 300 hearing to contending”
“U 1951 ACFM Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd v. Esstar Vision Sdn Bhd And Another Appeal [2016] MLJU 1776; 1 LNS 1522 AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260 AMT Engineering Services v AH Design Communication Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2018] MLJU 1860 Ann Joo Int”
“s which the counsels have chosen to submit in the instant case, namely Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] EWHC 282 (TCC); AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260; ACFM Engineering (supra); Euroland (supra); View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 2”
“Ravenna Singapore Branch v CGW Construction & Engineering (S) Pte Ltd [2018] 3 SLR 503 at [24]; SEF Construction at [49]; AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260 (“AM Associates”) at [23].”
“ty to comply with the principles of natural justice is not a species of appeal and must not be used as though it were. In AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260, Prakash J refused to set aside an adjudication determination for failure to comply with the principles”
“Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd [2010] 1 SLR 658 (“Chip Hup Hup Kee”) and AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260 (“AM Associates”) at [20], Ms Mariapan submits, on this basis, that since the Adjudicator in the present”
“The audi alteram partem rule requires the adjudicator to receive both parties’ submissions and consider them (AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260 (“AM Associates”) at [25]).”
“td v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd [2010] 1 SLR 658 (“Chip Hup Hup Kee”), SEF Construction ([19] supra) and AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260 (“AM Associates”). The second approach was that taken by Lee Seiu Kin J in Sungdo Engineering & Construc”
“Ravenna Singapore Branch v CGW Construction & Engineering (S) Pte Ltd [2018] 3 SLR 503 at [24]; SEF Construction at [49]; AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260 (“AM Associates”) at [23].”
“case where the Decision has been arrived out when there is no evidence to support it altogether. In the Singapore case of AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260 Judith Prakash J (now JA) held as follows: “25. ...However dissatisfied Laguna may be with those decisio”
“issue, it cannot then be a breach of natural justice so long as both sides had been heard. [107] In the Singapore case of AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260 it was held as follows:”
“al issue, it cannot then be a breach of natural justice so long as both sides had been heard. [51] The Singapore case of Am Associaties (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260 explains this requirement of natural justice as follows: “24. Laguna submitted that the Adjudicator had”
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
AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd [2009] SGHC 260
Case Metadata
Case No: OS 296/2009, RA 191/2009
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2009-11-23
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.