Judgment Header
Hong Alvin v Chia Quee Khee [2011] SGHC 249
Loading…
[2011] SGHC 249
General Division of the High Court of Singapore18 Nov 2011Suit No 423 of 2010 (Registrar's Appeal No 1 of 2011)
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 4 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
“In the decision of Hong Alvin v Chia Quee Khee [2011] SGHC 249 (“Hong Alvin”) at [25], the High Court observed that time bars under the Limitation Act are procedural in nature. Unlike a substantive time bar, which extinguishes the cause of action once the releva”
“The numerous disputes between the various factions have to-date already generated at least seven reported decisions: Hong Alvin v Chia Quee Khee [2011] SGHC 249; Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn v Airtrust (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another [2011] 3 SLR 980; Lee Pei-Ru Alice and another v Airtrust (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2013] SGHC 259;”
“ch entitles the plaintiff to obtain from the court a remedy against the defendant: Philip Morris Products Inc v Power Circle Sdn Bhd and others [1999] 1 SLR(R) 964 at [5]; Hong Alvin v Chia Quee Khee [2011] SGHC 249 at [17].”
“4(1)(b) for being an abuse of process of the Court or on the alternative ground under O 16 r 4(1)(c) that it is in the interests of justice for the claim to be struck out: Hong Alvin v Chia Quee Khee [2011] SGHC 249 at [25] and [26]; see also Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 4099 v TPS Construction Pte Ltd a”
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
Hong Alvin v Chia Quee Khee [2011] SGHC 249
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit No 423 of 2010 (Registrar's Appeal No 1 of 2011)
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2011-11-18
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.