Judgment Header
MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319
Court DecisionSGHC
[2010] SGHC 319
[2010] SGHC 319
General Division of the High Court of Singapore29 Oct 2010Suit No 545 of 2008
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 15 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
15Later cases and laws citing this decision
“rily or capriciously (Liability Judgment at [17], citing Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd v Pawan Kumar Jagetia [2022] SGHC 74 at [124] and MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319 (“MGA”) at [102]–[103]). We note that the Judge approached the matter from the perspective of Wednesbury”
“onfirmed that the present case involved contractual rather than restitutionary quantum meruit (for the distinction between the two, see MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319 (“MGA International”) at [113], citing Rabiah Bee bte Mohamed Ibrahim v Salem Ibrahim [2007] 2 SLR(R) 65”
“eng Tiong Trading, Import and Export (1988) Pte Ltd [2000] 3 SLR(R) 386 (“Lee Siong Kee”) at [30], the Singapore High Court decision of MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319 (“MGA International Pte Ltd”) at [113]−[116] and the UK Supreme Court decision of Benedetti and another”
“tion properly. In particular, it was accepted that the discretion must not be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or perverse manner: MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319 (“MGA International”) at [102]–[106]; Edwards Jason Glenn v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd”
“These principles have been accepted by the local courts. In MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319 which concerned the extent of a party’s discretion to decide its own remuneration and commission for services (see [9]), Belinda Ang J quoted with approval (at [104]) the following”
Show 10 moreShow fewer
“In MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319, the High Court held that there is a corresponding expectation that a contractual discretion would be exercised fairly and rationally (at [103]). The Court referred (at [105]) to Socimer Bank Ltd v S”
“f his view, Wei J referred to the decision of Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and another [2015] 1 WLR 1661 (“Braganza”) at [30], as well as MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319 (“MGA”) at [104].”
“properly categorised as perverse” (Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and another [2022] SGHC(A) 8 (“Dong Wei”) at [90] citing MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319 at [106]).”
“Ltd and another [2015] 1 WLR 1661 (“Braganza”) and a series of Singapore cases which appear to have adopted the same position (see, eg, MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Export (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319 (“MGA International”); Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and another [2018] SGHC 166 (“Le”
“Second, there is neither a principled reason nor authority for the implication of such term in law. CBLD cites the case of MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319 (“MGA”), Braganza ([182] supra) and Leiman ([187] supra). However, as observed by the Appellate Division in Dong Wei”
“Supreme Court’s decision in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and another [2015] 1 WLR 1661 (“Braganza”) and this court’s earlier decision in MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319 (“MGA”) (see [115]–[116] below). In Leiman, this court held that there was an implied term that the emplo”
“d not arbitrarily, capriciously or irrationally, where “irrationally” is used in an analogous sense to Wednesbury unreasonableness. See MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319 at [103]–[106]; Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and another [2018] SGHC 166 at [112]–[”
“ely affect the interests of the other party, there is an implied Good Faith term in relation to the exercise of contractual discretion; MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319 at [102]–[106] (“MGA International”); Edwards Jason Glenn v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd”
“ed into the contract. While the AD acknowledged that there were some authorities, such as Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 1661, MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319 (“MGA”) and Leiman, which suggest that contractual discretions are not wholly unfettered, these cases pe”
“foundation for grounding its case. In Rabiah Bee bte Mohamed Ibrahim v Salem Ibrahim [2007] 2 SLR(R) 655 (“Rabiah Bee”) (as affirmed in MGA International Pte Ltd v Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 319 (“MGA International”) at [113] and Eng Chiet Shoong v Cheong Soh Chin [2016] 4 SLR 728 at [37]), Prakash”
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: Suit No 545 of 2008
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2010-10-29
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.