para
Introduction
Loading…
[2020] SGHC 196
General Division of the High Court of Singapore15 Sept 2020Suit No 904 of 2017
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
Not yet cited by a later decision.
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
“Following the release of my judgment in Tan Wei Leong v Tan Lee Chin and others [2020] SGHC 124 (the “Judgment”), the plaintiff wrote to the Court to seek clarification on whether its fourth prayer for declaratory relief had been granted. The prayer in question was in the following terms:”
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
para
Introduction
1
Following the release of my judgment in Tan Wei Leong v Tan Lee Chin and others [2020] SGHC 124 (the “Judgment”), the plaintiff wrote to the Court to seek clarification on whether its fourth prayer for declaratory relief had been granted. The prayer in question was in the following terms:
2
This was one of four declarations prayed for by the plaintiff, the other three being for the purpose of and in connection with upholding a Deed of Family Arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendants.
para
Discussion
Costs
In the Judgment, the Court ordered that the Deed of Family Arrangement was to be set aside and accordingly, at [103], held that the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed with costs.
4
However, as regards the fourth prayer, the Court had earlier in the Judgment at [100(c)] concluded that the first defendant had made or procured forgeries of the signatures of the plaintiff and the second defendant on the Power of Attorney referred to in the fourth prayer. Inadvertently, [103] of the Judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim omitted to exclude the fourth prayer.
para
Orders
5
The first sentence of [103] of the Judgment is therefore corrected to read as follows:
Costs
No change is required to be made to my order as to costs as the dishonest nature of the first defendant's conduct had already been taken into account.
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.