[2013] SGHC 160

“et-off cross-liabilities which have been established by judgments, leaving one single liability for the balance sum: Longyuan-Arrk (Macao) Pte Ltd v Show and Tell Productions Pte Ltd and another suit [2013] SGHC 160 at [66]. In the present case, the set-off clearly involved cross-liabilities established by judgments.”

“y. That principle applies in full force where lay factual witnesses purport to give expert opinion. For instance, in Longyuan-Arrk (Macao) Pte Ltd v Show and Tell Productions Pte Ltd and another suit [2013] SGHC 160, a case cited by the Plaintiff, a production manager deposed that he had personally supervised the repla”

“, 2020) (“Clerk & Lindsell”) at para 21-26, “[t]he context in which words are published is very important” (see also Longyuan-Arrk (Macao) Pte Ltd v Show and Tell Productions Pte Ltd and another suit [2013] SGHC 160 (“Longyuan-Arrk”) at [129(e)]). In this regard, I recognised at [34] and [36] above that Mr Murahashi ha”

“Deluge to provide sufficient evidence to establish its claim for the back-charges imposed on Vim (see, for example, Longyuan-Arrk (Macao) Pte Ltd v Show and Tell Productions Pte Ltd and another suit [2013] SGHC 160 at [104]). In this regard, we find the case of Impact Painting Ltd v. Man-Shield (Alta) Construction Inc”

“reasonable person would not be expected to know this), that this is in fact consistent with the position at law. In Longyuan-Arrk (Macao) Pte Ltd v Show and Tell Productions Pte Ltd and another suit [2013] SGHC 160, the High Court held (at [133]) that a company cannot be injured in its feelings but only in its business”