21+ results
Showing related results.
[2025] SGCA 40
SGCA2025-08-28Court of Appeal / Civil Appeal No 2 of 2023 (Summons No 16 of 2023)
[165] Given the important questions of public interest that were raised, we make no order as to costs for the proceedings before us. We note that, similarly, no costs were ordered in OA 480 and SUM 8. The usual consequential orders will apply.
[2025] SGHC 253
SGHC2025-12-16Originating Application No 1213 of 2025
I turn now to the Applicants’ last set of arguments which relate to Art 93 of the Constitution.
[2024] SGHC 37
SGHC2024-02-09Admiralty in Rem No 61 of 2021
The AS CLC Limitation Fund was established to address oil pollution claims that third parties might have against the Plaintiff (see [14] and [18] above). It does not pertain to the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant. In so far as the Plaintiff claims an...
[2023] SGHC 154
SGHC2023-05-23Suit No 441 of 2021
[171] For the above reasons, I allow the plaintiff’s claim in part. I grant declarations that the Ban and the Notice to Partners were unlawful as they were issued ultra vires the Constitution and in breach of the rules of natural justice. It follows that a fu...
[2022] SGHC 161
SGHC2022-07-08Suit No 1158 of 2017
For the reasons set out at [272] to [284], I found that both sets of plaintiffs were able to establish at least a prima facie case that there was no agreement by the shareholders to the 11 December 2001 Allotment. There was therefore at least a prima facie ca...
[2022] SGHC 141
SGHC2022-06-16General Division of the High Court — Originating Summons No 1313 of 2021 Dedar Singh Gill J 18 April 2022
[185] I dismiss the application. I will hear parties on costs separately.
Bill 4 2022
It is a condition of an approval for any dispute resolution scheme approved under section 31(1) that the operator of the approved dispute resolution scheme that is a company must not amend its constitution without the prior approval of the Authority.
[2021] SGHC 13
SGHC2021-01-22Criminal Case No 27 of 2019
[61] I therefore granted the Prosecution leave to call Dr Phang to give rebuttal evidence. This was subject to the Defence leading evidence on any point in surrebuttal, provided leave is granted. However, the Defence did not make this application.
[2021] SGCA 96
SGCA2021-10-08Civil Appeal No 47 of 2020, and Summonses Nos 72 and 98 of 2020
[245] To summarise, we allow the SDP appeal in part and dismiss the TOC appeal. Where the SDP appeal is concerned, we set aside under s 17(5)(a) of the POFMA the first half of SDP CD-3, which is that part of SDP CD-3 that pertains to the December Facebook pos...
[2020] SGCA 43
SGCA2020-04-29Criminal Appeal No 46 of 2017
[199] For the foregoing reasons, the Importation of Cannabis Mixture Charge cannot stand, and we set aside the Appellant’s conviction on this charge. This does not, however, affect his conviction on the Importation of Cannabis Charge for the reasons explained...