In Systematic Airconditioning Pte Ltd v Ho Seng Ken and others [2023] SGHC 10, the Honourable Justice Chua Lee Ming addressed this question, providing much-needed clarity on the scope of Marital Communications Privilege.

Our team consisting of Wilbur Lua and Darryl Lau successfully represented our client in obtaining a favourable outcome in the appeal.

Appeal made by the deceased’s employer and its insurer against work injury compensation dismissed by court

This case concerned one Dr Paul Freda Malliamalar (“Dr Paul”) and her property. Dr Paul was a paediatrician at the Singapore General Hospital. She passed away in 2016 at the age of 87 years old. The Plaintiffs are the executors of the Estate of Dr Paul, and were previously her court-appointed deputies.

This case centred on a dispute that arose in a settlement agreement between the minority shareholders (Plaintiffs) and majority shareholders (Defendants) of Agape Holdings Pte Ltd (“Agape Singapore”), a company incorporated in Singapore.

Megaport (Services) Pty Ltd (“the Applicant”), a telecommunication service provider, applied for registration of a subject mark, “MEGAPORT”. The application mark was accepted and published for opposition purposes. Singapore Telecommunications Limited (“the Opponent”) then opposed the registration. The Opponent argued that their earlier marks (“Opponent’s Earlier Marks”) are similar to the application mark.

This appeal concerned the outcome of a lengthy dispute between the management corporation of a condominium, Grange Heights (the “MCST”) and owners of an adjacent plot of land, Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd (“Lee Tat”). The dispute was over a strip of land owned by Lee Tat, used as a shortcut by residents of Grange Heights to access Grange Road and Orchard Road easily.  The Court of Appeal held in 2008 (overruling their previous decision in 2005) that the residents of Grange Heights did not have an easement over the strip of land. Following the 2008 decision, Lee Tat then sued the condominium’s MCST, claiming damages for (1) malicious prosecution for two prior suits to assert the easement (2) abuse of process for four prior actions (3) expressing malicious falsehoods (4) trespass on Lee Tat’s property by continuing to access the shortcut until the Court of Appeal held in 2008 that the condominium residents were not entitled to access.

When maintenance sums for children fall due, are there any time restrictions on applications to enforce them through the court system? In ULU v. ULT [2018] SGFC 45, the Family Court emphasised that the statutory 3-year time bar in section 121(3) of the Women’s Charter does not apply to applications to enforce child maintenance orders. The court also considered other issues, including the determination of the terms of an agreement made via email.

This case concerns the sudden death of an engineer during the course of his work as a result of a brain aneurysm. On 3 March 2016, the sole breadwinner of the family was found unconscious in the toilet of his office building. At that time of the incident, he was employed as a service engineer.

In the District Court (“DC”), the Appellant, a Singapore Management University law professor, was ordered to pay $120,000 in total damages after defaming the three Respondents during an Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) of the management corporation (“MC”) of the Duchess Residences in the Bukit Timah area.

In Tang Ling Lee v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGHC 18, the High Court judge laid down the sentencing framework for road traffic cases under Section 338(b) of the Penal Code. The judge emphasized that it applied only to road traffic cases (at [24]). A flowchart summarizing the sentencing framework is set out here.

In the recent case of Ang Ai Tee v Resource Credit [2017] SGHC 159, the High Court upheld the appeal of a plaintiff borrower who sought to set aside a statutory demand for the sum of $135,879.96, which was issued by the defendant licensed moneylender pursuant to a series of refinancing transactions introduced by the defendant. At the crux of this case was the refinancing scheme in which the defendant imposed a 10% administrative fee for every loan refinancing arrangement.

On the evening of 26 March 2014 (which was 3 days after the funeral of his mother who was killed tragically), the Plaintiff, who was then 29 years old, signed a declaration of trust (“DOT”), which purported to constitute him and his wife (the 2nd Defendant) as joint trustees of all his assets for the sole benefit of their infant son (the 1st Defendant). Pf then sought to set aside the DOT, which had been drafted and presented to him by the 2nd Defendant. Before the 2nd Defendant stopped working in 2012, she had been a practising lawyer for four years before spending two years in the banking industry.

Singapore High Court construes "good faith" in banking standard terms in the context of unauthorised fund transfers, finds that circumstances were not sufficient to put a reasonable banker on suspicion regarding unauthorised transfers, and finds on reasonableness of exclusion clauses under the unfair contract terms act.